'KLM also takes risks by taking as less as possible fuel' according politician

[1stspotter]

Today one of the biggest newspapers in the Netherlands, AD, has a story on the frontpage titled 'KLM also takes risks' (translation of 'Ook KLM neemt risico's')

Decided to start a new thread on this news to keep the Ryanair thread on topic. I guess that topic will get some more new postings this week.

The news has been reported to the newspaper by SP (left wing political party in the Netherlands) by member of parliament Farshad Bashir.
Bashir sent a message on Twitter that he contacted the largest Dutch newspaper Telegraaf about this 'news' weeks ago. But Telegraaf did not publish his info. No strange as Telegraaf is very much a pro KLM newspaper.

The article (in Dutch) can be read here:
'Ook KLM laat piloten met weinig brandstof vliegen' - AD.nl (http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1007/Reizen/article/detail/3370510/2012/12/31/Ook-KLM-laat-piloten-met-weinig-brandstof-vliegen.dhtml)

KLM responded that it does not recognize the complains and that safety is its first priority.

On page 2 the article continues with a big headline: SP (the political party): This is part of the company culture of KLM

To me this sounds the same as the KRO Reporter:
some journalists or politicians want to get their two minutes of fame. As cost reduction is important for allmost all airlines it is not strange that pilots are 'advised' to be economical with extra fuel. As long there are no sanctions I do not see a problem with that.

The translation by Google of the article on internet:

"Airline KLM also exerts pressure on its pilots to use as little fuel as possible to leave. Therefore be aware serious safety risks taken, find the SP. This reports the AD.

SP (political party) Member of Parliament Farshad Bashir spoke with several employees of KLM. "KLM allows pilots deliberately with enough fuel to fly to save costs," he concludes. This "economy" led in 2009 to an incident that so far remained outside the publicity, but stated in a report that the newspaper in his hands.

A Boeing 747 of KLM was en route to Los Angeles, when it appeared that the fuel was running low and the destination is not yet in sight. The pilot wanted 'operating manual' and follow a stopover. There would, however, not the airline. KLM put pressure on the captain, but nevertheless decided to make a stopover to refuel.

Ryanair
The European organization for pilots Agency shall examine the extent to which their pilots airlines put pressure on less fuel to fly. That said chairman Nico For Bach in response to a broadcast of the program KRO Reporter, that Friday was broadcast.

The program said four of Ryanair pilots under pressure to be put to minimize fuel to carry. This society would want to save money. Reporter in sounding the alarm about the pilots. "I hope it does not crash needed to awaken everyone," says one of them in Reporter.

Ryanair argues that the editors of the report Reporter 'only with rumors and speculation "has supported and" no effort "has done to the defense of Ryanair content to be included in the broadcast.

Mansveld
Wilma Mansveld Secretary for Infrastructure, the Irish government for clarification. That said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment Friday. "We have contacted the Irish authorities on this subject. They will come with a response. There is a research report prepared by the Irish. This we requested so we can study ", let the ministry know."

[BOAC]

Well done, 1stspotter - a new thread needed. I think AD and indeed the world may be surprised to hear that the policy is common across many major airlines. Reduction of 'contingency fuel' below the traditional 5% on a statistical basis (as KLM appears - see 'Dutch TV' thread) came into play in BA in my time (up to 2004).

It is not unreasonable to expect crews to make sensible decisions on extra fuel uplift rather than the 'historic' knee-jerk "I'll take a bit extra". As discussed ad nauseam in many threads - don't have enough? - divert. See what the bean counters make of that.

[Best foot forward]

If the fuel on board complies with the regulation that has been formulated by the top professionals in the industry and has been in place for a long time, how can a journalist, who knows next to nothing about aviation deem it to be unsafe. Isn't this just another piece of sensationalism about nothing. If there is an argument for increasing the minimum fuel carried under the regulations, then make the case, and get the reg changed. Otherwise this, and the RY thred, are pointless discussions.

So what if there are, thunderstorms, fog, high cross winds, heavy rain, snow, traffic delays, there is always a provision to take extra in these circumstances. If you can't carry a full load in these circumstances then that's tough for the company. If there is a delay to the arrival hold until you reach the minimum fuel to divert then go somewhere else. If the pilot does his/her planning right, both before take off and en-route, then there is no reduction to safety.

[fireflybob]

The answer is simple - stop reading the newspapers!

I did so about 4 years ago (also eliminated TV and radio news and try to avoid reading same on the internet!).

My life is much more harmonious as a result.

[Groundbus]

There is a situation on YT about a KLM 744 which is going to LAX, but has to stay at FL280 or FL290. They're burning more and the captain talks with the OCC to do a fuel and go, blah blah bah, afterall they continue safely.

How should they know they have to stay that low? Same situation.

[1stspotter]

A quote from the politician documented in the article:

"Some minor thing has to go wrong , like crosswind or be a bit to heavy, and the plane will burn more fuel than expected and will need more fuel enroute.
If this happens at a location where a stopover or emergency landing is not possible, there will be incalculable consequences"

He kind of suggests a plane could crash because KLM deliberately let pilots fly with not enough fuel in order to reduce costs.

[BOAC]

A quote from the politician documented in the article - says it all, really. Like most politicians, he has NO IDEA what he is talking about.:)

The quality of Dutch 'investigative journalism' obviously leaves much to be desired.

[737Jock]

Well done, 1stspotter - a new thread needed. I think AD and indeed the world may be surprised to hear that the policy is common across many major airlines. Reduction of 'contingency fuel' below the traditional 5% on a statistical basis (as KLM appears - see 'Dutch TV' thread) came into play in BA in my time (up to 2004).

KLM is not doing this... You misunderstand

This was written:

The 16 minutes is not a percentage of the flightplan fuel.
It is the average (90 % or 99%) of the delays in the previous months.
So in a month with lots of delays due to wx for instance, the cont fuel will reflect those delays and can even be 30 min.

In slow months, with no delays, it goes down to the minimum of 5 minutes.


You wrote:

In my day, BA went completely 'statistical' on contingency and were often around 3% - with plogs worked on destination and arrival time. I do not recall them ever exceeding 5%.

Clearly KLM takes more then 5% based on statistics, they add the statistical delay fuel on top of the minimum contingency of 5 minutes or 5% of trip fuel. In accordance with normal EUops rules.
KLM gives information on how much the kneejerk extra fuel should be based on statistics and dictates this amount on the crew by adding it in the blockfuel through contingency fuel, but does the name really matter?

Regarding BA taking less then 5% of trip fuel... my ops manual states this about reduced contingency
Reduction of Contingency Fuel by the Use of 3% ERA
Not less than 3% or 5 minutes, which ever is greater, of the planned Trip Fuel or in the event of in flight replanning, 3% of the Trip Fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an en-route alternate is available in accordance with the diagram below. The en-route alternate should be located within a circle having a radius equal to 20% of the total flight plan distance, the centre of which lies on the planned route at a distance from the destination of 25% of the total flight plan distance, or at 20% of the total flight plan distance plus 50 NM, whichever is the greater; as illustrated below.

Does BA do this on a regular basis? And how does taking less then the minimum eu-ops dictated 5minutes /5% of trip involve statistics?

Again BOAC, learn to read! BA is not the worlds envy you know...

[1stspotter]

The Dutch newspaper is in possession of a report made by DEGAS. This stands for Dutch Expert Group Aviation Safety. Content of the report was used by the newspaper as input for the article.

DEGAS Home (http://www.adviescollege-degas.nl/degas_002.htm)

This is an independent advisory body in the Netherlands. Chairman is Benno Baksteen, a former KLM pilot and in recent past much seen at tv for aviation related events.
Goal of DEGAS is to increase safety in society by applying lessons learned in aviation.

DEGAS has written a report of the KLM flight which diverted to Las Vegas while KLM HQ wanted to pilot to continue to LAX even the plane could land there below minimum fuel.

DEGAS wrote another report about the pressure to reduce costs and the effect on the aviation safety. It is written in dutch and can be downloaded here.
http://www.adviescollege-degas.nl/linked/remmende_voorsprong_degas_advies_2012-017.pdf

[BOAC]

Does BA do this on a regular basis? And how does taking less then the minimum eu-ops dictated 5minutes /5% of trip involve statistics? - ah! Really good to see you here.:mad:

Regarding "learn to read!" - why not follow your own advice. Ask a pilot to show you a copy of EUOPS and you can read Appendix 1 to OPS 1.255, 1.3 (a) (iv). Perhaps you could then return here and educate us all with how you understand that alleviation. Nothing to do with "3% ERA" by the way.

Now from your own post In slow months, with no delays, it goes down to the minimum of 5 minutes. So, you are convinced that 5 minutes is always at least 5% of trip? Some examples please? You may well find that that point refers to Appendix 1 to OPS 1.255, 1.3 (b) (when you find it) where this is higher than the 'no delay' statistical contingency. You claim to be responsible for aeroplanes and fuel planning do you?
Does BA do this on a regular basis? - I don't know, but IF you read my post I said "in my time (up to 2004)" - it is now 2012 - so I do not know. Why not ask? I suspect they do.

I'm tempted to :ugh: here but I know it upsets some sensitive souls.

[BOAC]

DEGAS has written a report of the KLM flight which diverted to Las Vegas while KLM HQ wanted to pilot to continue to LAX even the plane could land there below minimum fuel. - I'm sure they are doing a good job, but without sight of that report (preferably in English since my 'fluent' Dutch is 55 years out-of-date:)) no-one can comment. IE What do they mean by" below minimum fuel" - as we can see on PPRune, 'minimum fuel' appears to be quite subjective and sometimes quite over-emotional - below F Reserve/Below CMR/Below CMR plus some company figure?

[737Jock]

BOAC you idiot, I quoted that! Quoted it from someone else, the person who explained to you how KLM's CONT 90 99 works, and what you clearly don't understand!
As such I did NOT WRITE IT! FFS!!! You really can't read, are you sure you have basic education?

Its 5% of trip or 5 minutes whatever is more!!!

Maybe its time to apply some moderating to your own posts...

[A and C]

At the moment we have a thread were the mud is being slung around and people are calling other people idiots without grounds to do so.

The fuel planning will by its vary nature change from hour to hour, what is safe for a route in the morning may well be unsafe six hours later.

Statments about an airline operations department telling a pilot to continue rather than divert are common, OCC have a job to do and this gets much more difficult when aircraft are in the wrong place, if the aircraft fuel state is borderline leagal for the destination then they will always say continue. It is for the aircraft commander to decide if the flight is safe to continue and to take the appropriate course of action.

I can't help thinking that some of you do not fully understand the responsabilitys of being an aircraft commander, the job will involve you standing up and telling OCC and others that they can't have their way on safety grounds.

As the commander you may have to justify your decisions to the airline management, it is only when an aircraft commander is fired for making what at the time and with the information avalable correct decision that the media should be writing the shock, horror & outrage headlines.

[BOAC]

A and C - good to see a reasoned post.

[737Jock]

I can't help thinking that some of you do not fully understand the responsabilitys of being an aircraft commander, the job will involve you standing up and telling OCC and others that they can't have their way on safety grounds.

That would be BOAC then, as he is making incorrect statements regarding KLM's contingency fuel. Even for bringing statistical contingency fuel into this discussion is ridiculous, as there is no information at all on the furl that KLM flight was carrying.
However his assumptions regarding KLM contingency fuel, which is solely for planning, are based on misunderstood information from the Dutch tv show thread, which I quoted. Why should we start this thread with incorrect information in the second post???

Subsequently he makes that quote out to be my own creation and lacking understanding of basic contingency fuel policy.

Sorry but someone who uses the quoted information to imagine that KLM is reducing contingency fuel, in a similar way to BA, below the EU-ops basic is sadly misled. And it's even more remarkable that he didn't recognize this exact same information and subsequently discredits it for lacking basic fuel contingency understanding. Ergo an idiot, guided by his own feelings of superiority, leading him to only gain half an understanding of what was written.

The rest was simply a question to how BA policy regarding reducing contingency fuel works. In my company this can only be done by 3% ERA and then even not below 5 minutes.

[sooty3694]

Can someone explain "diversion" fuel to me, and the logic behind EASA regs?

If you are required to divert, is it not reasonable to expect that many others will be doing the same. If that is a reasonable assumption, is it also reasonable to assume that you proposed route\level to your alternate might not be as you had expected, or hoped, due to the probability that others will have chosen the same alternate, and route thereto, or indeed the possibility of congestion at the now busy alternate?

Has this line of thinking been considered by the rule makers, or is this just another reason for leaving crews to determine what they wish to carry, without the need to consider repercussions when they add more, as was done in the past, for the "wife and kids."

[flyburg]

Somewhat reluctant to get involved with the discussion as I fing the report about RYR and subsequent KLM to be sleazy journalism, but have to correct one thing about what has been written in regards to KLM fuel policy.

EU OPS specify as contingency fuel, either 5%, 3% with an ERA, or a statistical value to be approved by the authority. None to be less than 5 minutes.

KLM uses the statistical method. However the data being used is NOT from the last month as stated before but from the last 2 years!! Specifically, flight number, time and season etc, etc! They than define that into a 90 or 99 percent coverage. The decision to take either the 90 or 99 is dependant on whether the destination has more than 2 runways and forecasted visibility above 3000 mtrs.

This is the minimum fuel as calculated by dispatch!! The pilots then check the flightplan, wx, notams, etc, etc. and then decide whether they are happy or not which that number. If they are not they input a different fuel number in the flightplan computer!! No dispatch involved, nobody to tell you can't!! As a courtesy, usually the dispatcher is called and informed as for the reason but he doesn't argue!!

For RYR, I have no idea but neither had the Dutch reporter!

[wiggy]

:ugh: :ugh:

Irrespective of dispatchers dispatching, contingency contingencying at 5%/5 min or whatever surely once you've got going, whether it's LHR-CDG or AMS-LAX captain's rule one is "try not to land with less than 30 minutes of fuel....." or am I missing something?

[RAT 5]

Let's have some common sense please. Fuel regs dictate the absolute minimum fuel an a/c can depart with. The calculations are very reasonable. I've been doing this a long time, in many different airlines, in various CAA's jurisdiction and on various a/c for long & short-haul. Never had a problem with the regs. It gave me a minimum start datum. There has to be a minimum limit, just as there as maximum limits for other parameters in our operations. Using this datum and all the other relevant data given to us at dispatch I then made a reasoned decision on what to take. Often the minimum was sufficient, sometimes not. Calculating the extra was the skill. Airlines are a private sector business and see how many have gone bust. Out of control costs don't help. It's all about common sense, statistics, risk management etc. If the company considers the occasional diversion, either at destination or en-route, to be acceptable in the year long costs of its operation then I don't have a problem with that. One airline I flew with make a statistical analysis of its home base weather over a couple of years and decided it was not cost effective to have CAT 3 a/c. Thus they accepted the few diversions due to fog. It was a foggy airfield in Autumn, but the numbers said CAT 3 would not have been such a saving grace X% of the time, so we stayed at CAT 1. This was in the days when a/c were not standard CAT 2/3. Was that unsafe? No, it was sometimes inconvenient. Extra fuel to hang around was not a problem.
Long-haul into the Caribbean with 150kts jet streams, and NPA at destination and dodgy weather forecasting was not a time to be on minimum. One airline tried to tell us that 5% contingency for the 12 hour flight was enough. No it wasn't. A diversion delayed the return due to crew duty times etc. However, on the return to Europe the ground was littered with CAT 3 airfields from first landfall well before destination. Minimum was usually more than enough. It's having the knowledge to make a sensible calculation and feeling free to do so. Other than that then there is a safety issue. Legal minimum is just that: it may not always be the sensible choice.

[Flytdeck]

Previous poster.

Not a rule of thumb, but a CARDINAL rule. If a commercial aircraft lands with less than 30 minutes worth of fuel, then the flight crew has not done their job properly. Having to declare a fuel emergency (valid MAYDAY) means there have been errors made along the way, CRITICAL errors. With provisions, we are operating with 30 minutes, alternate, and 3% on domestic and overseas routes. This means that little has to change before serious consideration must be made of landing prior to destination. It is a critical part of the pilots' job to monitor the fuel remaining and determine if the destination can be achieved with adequate (and legal... two different things) reserves.

"Pushing it" is not an option nor is permitting dispatch to run roughshod over the crew.

[737Jock]

Never had a problem with the regs. It gave me a minimum start datum.

All fine as long as it is seen as a minimum. However like with all aviation regulations in lowcost evironment, the legal limits become the targets.

It seems some of you never worked or know about working in a lowcost environment.

When unrealistic diversion routes are being planned and presented as the minimum I think authorities have to act.
Let's consider a nice day, what reasons would lead to a diversion from destination to the alternate. Mostly this would be unexpected weather or the airfield closing for one or the other reason. Reasons that will likely affect many other aircraft that will also divert. If the destination airfield is busy this will create a large traffic flow, possibly to an airfield with much less capacity.
Yet we plan our alternate fuel in the most direct routing without any delay being anticipated. Is that realistic?

In my opinion unrealistic alternate fuel is being calculated in all airlines.

[Dan Winterland]

''In my opinion unrealistic alternate fuel is being calculated in all airlines''.

it probably is, but of course the Commander has the power to take more - and in most cases will. Unless he is under pressure, perhaps in fear of his job to take the bare minimum. This is when the regulatory authorities need to take action!

[mabrodb]

http://www.ifalpa.org/store/doc9976.pdf

BA is using 95 and 99th% SCF figures these days.
Most of the other long haulers are using 3% ERA or a flat :20 CONT (whichever is lower).

Latest ICAO annex 6 makes specific mention of statistic contingency fuel.

[RAT 5]

It seems some of you never worked or know about working in a lowcost environment.

I had been TRE in 2 LoCo's for 14 years. My contention is that crews should be educated in making sensible fuel calculations. Sensible can be minimum. They should be trusted and not pressurised into cutting corners. There should be a monitoring system to ensure crews are not being wasteful whilly nilly. If they are they are not exercising good judgement. Taking a little bit extra means nothing. A tank of fuel is a tank of time. If you need it take it; if you don't then don't. Desk jockeys should not be calling the shots on the day. Is it true some airlines pre-load fuel to minimum for first flights? If so this could be seen as pressure as it could cause a delay if more fuel was requested. This delay would need explaining and some might be willing to depart, uncomfortably. The problem would come if you delayed, took extra, and then landed with it still in the tanks. Difficult to justify with hind-sight. But at dispatch your gut & experience feeling told you it was needed to be safe and comfortable. That should be respected. Crews need to be trusted. If they have created this situation for themselves by always taking a bit extra for wife & kids then it is reasonable to ask for an explanation and to take steps if there is none. It is a business with massive costs and there needs to be trust and respect for the professionalism of both sides. That seems to be under threat and needs redressing.

[FullWings]

I think that the kind of article that triggered this thread uses the word "risk" in a more emotional way than is really necessary.

For the vast majority of the time, a fuel shortfall at some stage in flight means that you have to land somewhere else, refuel, then continue to destination (or not). The "risk" is a purely commercial one, that you're going to have to spend more on fuel, landing fees, etc. than you would if you'd made it in one hop.

I'm quite happy to take 90-95% SCF (which can be 5mins) as long as I have options en-route. My company has worked out that this saves money overall but they also ask me to take more, should I decide that it is needed to make my arrival at the correct airport more of a certainty.

If crews have a plan (an a plan B, C...) and stay within the boundaries of EU OPS or whatever, I can't see an issue. If pressure is being applied by the operator to carry on outside the rules when fuel is tight, then that's a totally different matter and should be brought to the attention of the regulator immediately. AFAIK that isn't what's happening here?

[No RYR for me]

I think any statement by the most anti aircraft and anti high paid professionals political party in the Netherlands needs to be assessed with extreme care... :rolleyes:

The lead person of DEGAS, a former KLM capt and the former chairman of DALPA was in the press with a very good assessment of the use of extra fuel and the trade offs this has in safety, environmental cost and financial terms... A much needed balanced and informed view! :ok:

In short: a lot of noise in the press by people who have no clue.... and who the fearful will vote for because of this scaremongering... :}

Rant over

[PH-Chucky]

I have been a Flight Dispatcher for KLM and I can tell you that they have a very healthy and safe fuel philosophy.

They monitor their fleet 24/7 and they have realtime info about the amount of fuel they aircraft are carrying. Flight Dispatch does pro-active checks of weather and traffic situation at destination and they give crews advice about this in case of interruptions (or possible expected interruptions) of trafficflow at destination.

Yes, crews are asked to think about the amount of fuel they want to carry, but they are totally not unsafe. It has happened maybe a few times an extra landing was planned for extra fuel-uplift, but this was because they had more headwind/lower Flightlevel than expected and has only happened a few times in the last 10 years of active dispatching. They did this to stay on the safe side of the legal limits and out of trouble!! So in my opinion you can't compare this with actual flying into your Emergency Fuel at all!!!

And crews easily take 20 mins extra fuel if weather deteriorates. And in case of expected delays/diversions the crews will get an alternate that makes sense. So not all to Rotterdam, but for instance Brussels/Antwerp when coming from the south, or Dusseldorf when coming from the east.

If weather is really much worse than expected and the longhaul flight are already arborne, then the flowcontroller (monitoring slots) and Operations (monitoring overall flow of fleet) gives other airplanes (short haul) some delay, cancellations or rerouting via a different IAF to prevent holdings/delays to other flights. I know about a situation that we gave an airborne flight the advise to divert to Düsseldorf, but the Captain had taken extra fuel and was willing to hold at Amsterdam. But in that case he would have caused extra delays to other (more important) aircraft. So we explained the situation and he diverted to Düsseldorf and flew to Amsterdam after weather improved and trafficflow permitted his flight.

I've been preparing flights to Madrid, and those flightplans always needed extra attention due to trafficflow at Madrid. They standard got extra fuel based on statistical info and we planned the longer routing (arrival via the south and landing in northerly direction). And inflight we monitored trafficflow to advise on possible delays. And Captains could easily take extra fuel without any explanation

May I also inform you that KLM Dispatch is using CFMU...! After login on the CFMU (Eurocontrol website) you can exactly see all traffic and slots (airborne and 'planned' traffic with EAT). So we could determine how many aircraft would land within a certain time period at a destination. This means flights are given advise to increase/decrease their speed to stay out of these moments of increased trafficflow and to limit any holding delays or unwanted fuelburn.

In my opinion traffic management (and fuel decisions) are very well integrated in a safe environment at KLM. And in my opinion very few airlines are so wel prepared and monitoring their fleet. Yes, it may have happened that an aircraft had to divert, but this was only to stay out of trouble and to cause as little as disruption overall to its fleet!

[BOAC]

As FullWings says, the measure of 'insufficient fuel' 'too less as possible fuel' to paraphrase is when aircraft are regularly tech stopping or diverting due to lack of fuel, and believe me, management and the beanos would soon notice and I'm sure things would change. The number of regular fuel 'emergencies' should be a guide to the wisdom of current policy.

I would hope any pilots+ Ops Staff with an interest in Fuel Planning in the 21st century might visit my tech log thread on fuel planning.

I have an in-built resistance to SCF since I think it is contrary to the 'traditional' intention of CF, but am happy to accept a statistical 'extra fuel' added on a CFP for 'expected' ATC delays at destination.

Is it time to look at changing our planning system to reflect the vastly improved information available to crews and ops both pre-flight and en-route?

[Bengerman]

Flytdeck, sorry mate, but this is bollox:

Not a rule of thumb, but a CARDINAL rule. If a commercial aircraft lands with less than 30 minutes worth of fuel, then the flight crew has not done their job properly.

Look, fuel loading at departure is a planning exercise. Take all available information, check it out with the flight plan, take a sensible amount of fuel to achieve task, complying with all national and company regulations but still economically sensible and launch.

En -route things happen which cause changes to the plan, but that's ok because we have dispatched legally and we can update the plan as we go. We can burn contingency if necessary, we can also burn diversion fuel if we meet the requirements to do so.

So despite getting to destination with less than planned, we are still legal, we plan to land with more than reserve (30mins) fuel.

Due to further unforseen circumstances (say G/A at destination due previous aircraft slow to vacate) we actually land with 29 minutes fuel remaining having made all the right radio calls and informed all the required people.

JOB DONE!

[FullWings]

Bengerman,

Agreed. All common sense.

When I'm a passenger, I'd rather have a crew who took less fuel but were competent in the management of it, than one that took extra fuel 'for Mum' but went to pieces when it started to run out.

It doesn't matter what you loaded to start with, it's how the end game is played that sorts the professionals from the amateurs...

[Onceapilot]

A quick internet search reveals claims of having had to use final reserve fuel.
No smoke without fire folks (or, no fire without fuel?):ooh:.

[BOAC]

A quick internet search reveals claims of having had to use final reserve fuel. - what is stopping you posting them?

[jester42]

FullWings (yes please!) said;
''I'd rather have a crew who took less fuel but were competent in the management of it, than one that took extra fuel 'for Mum' but went to pieces when it started to run out.''

This is the crux of the matter.

[1stspotter]

A quick internet search reveals claims of having had to use final reserve fuel.

Onceapilot:
could you please share some links showing KLM aircraft having had to use final reserve fuel?

I found one incident of a Fokker 70 of KLM Cityhopper which landed in Bremen in 2004 with 750 kg of remaining fuel.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/2006035e_2004116_PH-KZI_short_report.pdf

Otherwise there have been very few unplanned landings in recent years because of unexpected headwind, lower than desired flightlevels etc. I think it is around 1 unexpected landing every 2 years thans to KLM using CONT90 or CONT99.

[Onceapilot]

1st
Please note that I did not find claims that KLM crews were involved. People don't tend to post that detail.
Cheers

[BOAC]

Please note that I did not find claims that KLM crews were involved. - so why post on this thread? Trolling?

[Flap40]

It is a pity that that report simply states '750kg' without referencing it to a time scale or the final reserve from the flight plan for that flight.

I've just had a look at the holding fuel tables for the F70. At 34T (a typical landing weight for a full flight) and a hold at 1500ft the fuel flow is 1540 kg/hr. 750 kg would put them only 20kg under which equates to less that 1 minutes flying time.

[Onceapilot]

BOAC
You will not get a bite here old chap!

[BOAC]

Nor, I trust, will you. Again, why not post these little 'treasures' you have 'found'?

[bubbers44]

All airlines now dispatch with minimum legal fuel plus what delays are expected. The captain decides if it adequate and adds what he feels is necessary. I rarely added fuel if it was reasonable but once out of Honduras to MIA realized we would probably hold so put on extra fuel.

We hit a turkey buzzard right after take off right above my window so hard I thought we had popped rivets so instead of FL410 went to FL280 in case we depressurized. I couldn't have done it without the extra fuel to land at MIA. The PIC does not ever have to accept dispatch fuel if he disagrees with it.

[BOAC]

The PIC does not ever have to accept dispatch fuel if he disagrees with it. - NB there is no 'dispatch' in this operation. Fuel is decided purely by the Captain.

[N1EPR]

Sometime in the early 1970s a PAA 747 enroute to JFK held and held for weather. Finally decided to go to his alternate EWR. EWR is only about 15nm as the crow flies but ATC sent him three quarters of the way to PHL before turning him toward EWR. Landings were to the SW. As he got within 15 nm of EWR he declared an emergency after running out of fuel on one or maybe two engines. He requested to land NE and was approved. The aircraft was able to leave the runway at the end, but there it sat. Out of fuel. All 4 engines were fuel starved.

He was still ther some time later when I taxied out for TO. I shuddered and got a sick feeling in my stomach as I realized what had almost happened.

BTW it was legal then to use all your fuel getting to an airport. I hope it has changed.

[edmundronald]

Hi

If I understand the "rules" rightly from discussion here, every plane takes on board fuel to go to the alternate. That sounds very good, but if your destination is a big airport that suddenly shuts down for some reason while you are already circling over it, and the alternate is a smaller airport that cannot handle such traffic, exactly where are the guys short on fuel supposed to park their bus?

Isn't a bit of spare fuel something a captain should be allowed to take on board if he feels like it?

[gulfairs]

That would be nice to tanker fuel if you had the weight margins,but:
In loose terms on a heavy jet,
on burns 10% of the excess fuel for every 1000 nm that it is carried.
Eg,
nzaa to phnl 3800 nms :load 10000kgs of 'mum and the kids fuel,
you will arrive with only 6200kgs of the excess ..
Expensive isn't it

[Squawk-7600]

Expensive isn't it

I agree in long-haul, carrying additional fuel is a serious undertaking. However most of the so called "low-cost" operators, where it is alleged this type of pressure is most being placed on crews, operate relatively short sectors where the cost to carry is nothing like figures you're quoting. So to answer your question, on a per seat basis (after all, that is how seats are sold) in that context carrying fuel is not very expensive at all, typically a matter of a few pence/cents per seat. I would be very wary of getting wound up in PR spin that quotes these figures on an accumulated basis. The bottom line is the cost per seat on 1-2 hour sectors is pittance.

[FullWings]

...if your destination is a big airport that suddenly shuts down for some reason while you are already circling over it, and the alternate is a smaller airport that cannot handle such traffic, exactly where are the guys short on fuel supposed to park their bus?
This kind of thing does happen occasionally, say with a rapid onset of un-forecast fog/thunderstorms, security incident, blocked runway, etc. The information propagates quite rapidly across the ATC network, so those who have still got some distance to run to the (now closed) airport can make alternative plans. Doesn't much help those who are now committed to destination and/or alternate, though.

When airports say they are full, it normally means that all the stands are occupied, so there are still taxiways and even the runway(s) left to put aeroplanes. You'd probably have to declare an emergency but that's better than running out of fuel mid-air. If the problem is an aircraft stuck on the runway, then you could land on what's left, performance permitting, or even on a taxiway. If it's a security issue, then you could land anyway and deal with it afterwards. If visibility is the problem and a precision approach is available (ILS/MLS) then, again, you'd just do it; if there are non-precision approaches only, or none at all, most modern aircraft will get somewhere close to the centreline and touchdown zone using GPS. There may be smaller airports within range that are not approved for your aircraft type and have no facilities but nonetheless provide a length of tarmac which is adequate to stop on. A controlled off-airport landing/ditching is preferable to an uncontrolled crash, in extremis.

Commercial aviation is overflowing with laws, rules and procedures. We do our best to observe and follow them but sometimes you just have to concentrate on getting the aircraft safely on the ground and sod everything else. Most pilots that I know have a series of fallback options for when things really start going wrong: plans A..D are within the rules, plans E..J aren't and from plan K you're just hoping you can walk away from it.

Fuel decisions and, really, most of aviation are based on statistical likelihood. This is a combination of regulation, experience and commerce. There is no 100% assurance of a safe flight, no matter how much fuel you take or how well maintained the aircraft is but if you keep "an eye to windward" and are prepared to fall back (gracefully at first) as far as is needed down the list of possibilities, then things will probably turn out OK.

[ross_M]

If I understand the "rules" rightly from discussion here, every plane takes on board fuel to go to the alternate. That sounds very good, but if your destination is a big airport that suddenly shuts down for some reason while you are already circling over it, and the alternate is a smaller airport that cannot handle such traffic, exactly where are the guys short on fuel supposed to park their bus?


Does anyone keep track of how many aircraft have Airport-X as an alternate at any given time? With computerization this shouldn't be too hard.

That might give a more robust system.

[BOAC]

Airport-x does (well,, always used to - ATC comment??). It is/was notified when the flight plan specified it as an alternate and I can recall airports 'refusing' nomination if overloaded..

For those worried about the 'what-if' scenario, review 9/11 diversions. Not one came to 'harm'.

[PENKO]

I agree in long-haul, carrying additional fuel is a serious undertaking
Do you understand the scale we are talking about in airlines like Ryanair? They have thousands of flights each day. Saving 30 kg of fuel on one flight may seem like a pittance to you compared to long haul. But say the airline does 1000 flights daily, that will mean the airline wastes 30 TONS of fuel just because their pilots 'load up for mum'.

Large airlines like Ryanair fly much more than 1000 flights...you do the math!


No wonder these airlines stress so much about the small fuel savings we can easily achieve, like taxi in and out on one engine (20 kg), delaying the engine start till the end of the pushback (10 kg), less drag approaches (20 kg). It saves tons of fuel across the fleet. Daily.


May I compliment Full Wings with his excellent post. You managed to capture the essence of a difficult (and sometime even emotional it seems!) subject.

[Squawk-7600]

Penko please read my post again, it has nothing to do with how many flights a company does, whether it is 1 or 1000 per day, as it is all relative to the revenue, which is obviously also proportionally bigger for a larger airline. It is all a question of cost and revenue, and what is the difference between the two. Revenue is derived on a per seat basis. For valid comparison the costs should also be compared accordingly. The cost to carry is an enormous factor in longhaul sectors, as described by bbg. However on shorter sectors it is not as big a factor as some in the PR department would like to make out IF CONSIDERED ON A PER SEAT BASIS.

[1stspotter]

I read a very interesting paper by KLM on fuel efficiency. KLM does a lot to reduce consumption of fuel. Hedging, other procedures, cont90/cont99, make stuff in the cabin lighter etc.

The paper shows that things like:
-starting the engines after pushback
-lower descend rate
-tank at the lastest when all load figures are known
-apu shutoff when ground power unit is available
-flap 10 iso 15
-n-1 taxi in
-idle reverse
-start apu later at boarding time

will lead to a cost reduction of Euro 4.050.800 per year on the B737 fleet. Per flight the reduction in fuel is around 62 kg when above procedures are done.
KLM does 6333 stretches with the B737 per month. Ryanair will do much more.

[Squawk-7600]

Spotter you are quite correct. What some seem to forget is the weight causes the issue, in this case the weight being discussed just happens to be fuel. On the other hand there are many ways a company can save fuel directly, and the initiatives you described are just some of them.

Of course airlines are going to try to save money, and carrying less weight (in the form of fuel) is one way. Nobody can blame an airline for that. However the cost of carrying needs to be kept in appropriate perspective.

[PENKO]

You can throw any statistic you like onto the problem, and I can't fault you for that. But the bottom line is that the fuel savings are huge in a business where the margins are very tiny. So every kg counts even or maybe especially in short haul low cost.

You talk about perspective, well, remember that these huge airlines only made about 300-500 million profit. That's not much. Saving 30 tons of fuel or more on a daily basis has a large impact. The proper perspective is: don't sweat about these figures. Save fuel when you can, don't economize when you can't.

[1stspotter]

KLM expected to pay around 1.800.000.000 euro on fuel costs in year 2010/2011.
The target was a fuel reduction of around 1 % by using sophisticated fuel calculations, other procedures, weight reduction etc.

It is not hard to imagine that common sense and fuel awareness can save a lot of money.

[Meikleour]

Squawk-7600: I wish more people would make your point and not allow themselves to be brainwashed by the "beancounter" approach. Revenue is as important to a company as costs. When you consider the average fares charged, even by the LoCos, it is obvious that a few pence/cents on the ticket would more than cover the marginal costs of the extra fuel carried to give crews more flexibility.
Unfortunately the current attitude by airline managers towards what is a "suitable fuel" to be carried simply pushes the safety margins in terms of time available to crews whenever anything goes array. Quite frankly, the supposed savings are rather nebulous when you consider a) fuel gauging errors b) fuel loaded by the bowser to the nearest 100kg c) assumed pax/cargo weights d) arbitrary diversion routings.

It appalls me to think that there are crews around who think that they are doing a good commercial job by flying round on marginal fuel loads whilst the commercial departments of the airline refuse to charge realistic fares!! The idea that 50p/£1 on a ticket might be a deterrent to travelling by air is not borne out by the spend per head of those same pax when they are onboard or in the shop before flight.

As a grizzled old F/E said to me once - "the fuel tanks are for fuel, old boy, not for air!"

[fireflybob]

Also from an operational point of view it's not so much what fuel you carry but how much you burn! Happy motivated and well trained crews can tactically saves masses of fuel for a Company by the way they operate - and am not meaning pestering ATC for directs all the time!

In short experienced crews can save a lot of gas!

[PENKO]

Quite frankly, the supposed savings are rather nebulous when you consider a) fuel gauging errors b) fuel loaded by the bowser to the nearest 100kg c) assumed pax/cargo weights d) arbitrary diversion routings.

Don't forget that all those points you mention are constants: fuel gauges will always have errors wether you are a fuel saver or not. Neither can you change the bowser's fuel accuracy. What you CAN change is your fuel requirement. So if you decide not to take on an extra 500 kg of fuel for grandma you WILL over time burn less fuel than you, regardless of points A,B,C and D.

I do agree with your point that commercial pressures from the beancounters should not de a deciding factor. However as a professional you will have to decide for yourself if that extra fuel you take is the best you can do or just plain laziness/arrogance/insecurity.

[Meikleour]

PENKO: What makes you think my points are constants?

a) sitting in the hold, as a commander, would you rather be assured of how much fuel you can actually count on or or would you just rather hope that the FOB is accurate.
b) are you not aware that bowser uplifts are affected by fuel gauge accuracy?
c) I assume you are aware that the computer flight plan that has been prepared for your flight has a ZFW using probably optimistic weights for the pax? Have you never wondered why few airlines actually weigh their passengers ? (apart from the logistical problems)
d) diversion routings and assumed levels - have you not experienced the flow rate reductions that London apply to the TMA whenever there is significant wx. This should give you an inkling as to what happens when there is a major disrupting event at either LHR or LGW.

The other poster was simply trying to get people to understand the RELATIVE cost saving versus the TOTAL REVENUE collected and pointing out what minimum fuel levels do to your risk levels.

[BOAC]

Meikleour - a few points to remember

a) F Reserve is sufficient to cope with ANY known normal gauge inaccuracy
b) Bowser uplift IS of course affected by bowser gauge errors and cheating swindling bowser drivers (should they exist, he added hastily) but is, of course, double-checked against your gauge readings, isn't it?
c) Do I assume you regularly adjust all your performance calculations (including landing weight when tankering) to allow for these errors? If not, why not?
d) It is a pretty silly Captain who, faced with "flow rate reductions that London apply to the TMA whenever there is significant wx" does not review his fuel diversion figure and of course, does not look at div fuel on the CFP anyway and adjust it if he/she feels necessary.

Out of interest, what is your 'comfort zone' for extra fuel? Does your company penalise you for taking it? How often have you needed it?

[Meikleour]

BOAC:

a) your point is noted -however remember how the authorities quoted FOB figures to the EXACT digit to claim whether or not the 3 FR diversions had complied with the rules. Such accuracy is a nonsense.

d) I was simply using the wx analogy to illustrate what happens in very busy TMAs when something goes wrong - not necessarily weather related. In my opinion the fact that most airlines structure their fuel policies around only weather means that there is a higher risk of crews being caught out in the summer when they "are not required to carry extra fuel."

In the 70's when I operated B707 freighters to African destinations with a fuel policy that allowed single runway + no Alternate - I was unfortunate to be caught twice with blocked runways ( both of which were cleared in time, fortunately )
My personal "bitch" is with company fuel policies which encourage crews to "commit" to single runway destinations when they really should have sensible destination holding fuel. I personally have had many more diversions due to blocked runways rather than weather diversions. Perhaps your experience is different?

I do not have a single extra figure: there are too many differing situations for that.

[Squawk-7600]

The other poster was simply trying to get people to understand the RELATIVE cost saving versus the TOTAL REVENUE collected and pointing out what minimum fuel levels do to your risk levels.

Spot on, thank you. The point being, that the cost to carry are NOT huge savings when considered on a sector or seat basis, and only appear to be "huge" (as some would describe them) when presented as an accumulated figure. ANY saving appears to be "huge" when presented this way. Load 50 kg less lavatory water per sector. Bam! There's a lazy 30 million saving per annum fleet saving there. Remove paper charts from the flightdeck. There's another 5 million saving. So it goes on. You can't blame airlines for doing this.

However, as pilots, we need to guard against these accumulated figures influencing our decisions. Beancounters present these figures in this way because they appear to be large, but in fact they're not when considered in the appropriate context; the context in which we're making the decision. Taking less fuel than should be carried under the circumstances because you think you're saving the company 30 million by doing so is just idiotic. You take what you think is appropriate for YOU under the circumstances, and no more.

[Richthoven]

Just think: If you have to fly to an airport which traffic capacity has been based on 4 runways (like MAD) and dispatchers using “push a button” alternates (like VLC) having just a single runway system. What if you have a tempo :mad: FCST? Like me, of course I will be there always at the first minute of the “tempo” and therefore should plan enough fuel to hold the minutes 2 to 30. If I´d skip that idea, then I´d better go to the alternate. OK. But I will end up in a situation of an alternate that has to manage the diverting traffic of a high volume airport with just a single runway. So what should be the rule about planning alternates?
:rolleyes:

[gulfairs]

A heavy jet, operator allows up to 2000kg of fuel for start and taxi to departure runway and another 2 tons to get to 450 feet.
The CAA of this part of the world, and in Europe on short haul,
( i also flew for Ryanair back before the gulf war) demand something like a to b plus 3% from ETP to B plus B to C, plus 30 minutes.
On short haul from England to the Med. this is not a whole lot of fuel but is adequate, and if the crew are running a decent how goes it log, the chances of getting caught out are extremely small.
How many emergencies are called in a year because of fuel shortage, unless there has been an accident that closes the only reachable airport.
A lot of this forum sounds like wannabys spouting hot and wet air.(dribble).

[Bengerman]

bbq, agreed. Common sense rules the roost in most situations.

If the fuel plan is clearly nonsense then make up your own plan that isn't! Grow some balls and put on extra fuel if it is needed. If it is not needed and the plan is sensible, go with the plan.

Come on boys, this is not brain surgery!!

[PENKO]

Meikleour, I do take on board your point about the relativity of the fuel savings and trust me, I have no hesitation to load as much fuel as I feel necessary on the day. As I wrote earlier, on a bad wx day I'm a 'load her up' kind of guy and I don't care one ounce for the cost. On good days, depending on destination, I am happy to take the fuel saving blabla from the beancounters into account. In our company I do not perceive ANY pressure to save fuel. Yes we are made aware of the potential savings, but is that such a bad thing?


But what would your fuel policy be then? Would you be a fan of a standard additional company contingency of 15 minutes? Would all pilots who take extra for grandma stop doing that if the company would plan an additional 15 minutes contingency fuel all the time? Somehow I highly doubt it! Even if the company would plan for an additional 20 minutes there will still be pilots who just wan to add their little bit of fuel for grandma on a CAVOK day! I see it happening every day on routes where you KNOW the actual track miles to be far less than planned: still some of our colleagues insist on adding a couple'a hundred on a CAVOK day, not even noticing that we'll now land with half an hour extra fuel on a daily basis...


Squawk-7600:
Taking less fuel than should be carried under the circumstances because you think you're saving the company 30 million by doing so is just idiotic.
Nobody is saying you should take less fuel than you are comfortable with. What I am saying is that extra fuel is not for free so a bit of critical thought on fuel is highly professional on a worryfree CAVOK day. Can we agree on that statement?

[Squawk-7600]

Nobody is saying you should take less fuel than you are comfortable with. What I am saying is that extra fuel is not for free so a bit of critical thought on fuel is highly professional on a worryfree CAVOK day. Can we agree on that statement?

Likewise I don't believe anyone has suggested for a moment that taking additional fuel is free. What I'm trying to assert however is that it's a complete nonsense to look at it as a fleet-wide accumulated figure, especially in a large fleet where the figures appear to be "huge" to quote your expression, and then have that influence one's fuel order. In fact the revenue is ... errr, even "huger" ;) and the percentage saving is precisely the same whether the fleet has 1 aircraft or 100, it's just that the figures don't impress as much in the former case. Furthermore that percentage is sweet FA on average sector lengths of 1 hour and change that we're considering here, indeed pence if considered per seat. So to reiterate the point once again, management and PR departments would like to give the impression that taking additional fuel is a ruinous exercise that will surely bankrupt the company in a week, result in 2 headed babies being born, and armageddon come the next full moon. The figures bandied about tend to support that case ... well I'm not sure about the moon bit. While accumulated figures may fool the public, I would hope that an intelligent pilot would know precisely the situation, and that it amounts to bugger all on short sectors, some of the comments here leave me in grave doubts that some actually fully appreciate that fact.

[737Jock]

Ok lets calculate it, say an airline could save 30kg per day on every flight and has 189 seats on every aircraft. This airlines does 1000flights a day.

30 * 1000= 30.000 kg of fuel. No small amount indeed. Fuel is about $1000 per metric tonne, so 30.000kg will cost about 30.000 dollar, its a bit less but ok.

189*1000= 189.000 seats. Which works out to be a saving of 0,158$ per seat.

Which is offcourse the exact same thing as 30kg/$ divided by 189seats. The saving is exactly the same.

$0,158 is €0,1209 or £0,0983 at current exchange rate.
Thats 9p per seat!
Burning 30kg because more fuel is carried obviously also costs 9p per seat.

Every 10kg burned costs about 3p per seat, on a 189 seat aircraft. Its all about the context really.

So yes delay engine start, do single-engine taxiout/in, do low drag approaches. But also accept/request a visual approach on a cavok day instead of flying a full procedural arrival. Manage the energy with speed if you can instead of pulling speedbrake as soon as the FMS says you are too high. Program the winds into the FMS. Be proactive with atc and ask for shortcuts.
How much use is a low drag approach when people start configuring the aircraft earlier than when using full flap?

But don't save on fuel that you think you might need. And i'm not talking fuel for mum here.

Sure carrying extra fuel burns extra fuel, but so does bad descent planning, laziness to program the FMS correctly, bad piloting techniques, bad energy management, pulling speedbrake when the problem can be solved by increasing speed, etc...
Of all those things I think carrying extra fuel is the lesser evil. Problem is of all those things is that the only thing that can be properly measured is fuel upload.

Just my 2cents.

[Meikleour]

PENKO: As is usual with PPRUNE people tend to go off on tangents.

Every man and his dog knows to take extra fuel when the weather is bad. That is not the issue here.

The issue here is when you have a company fuel policy that plans short range flights to arrive at LGW (say for example) which are very busy and single runway ops. with as little as 6mins. destination loiter fuel above minimum diversion fuel. Typical nice summer day - weather not an issue.

The real issue is the pressure then applied to crews to "commit to destination" at a single runway destination in the event of delays. This is reasonable with multiple runways however I suggest to you that this might be unwise at a single runway destination. As the other poster was trying to explain, commercially the gain is not commensurate with the increased operational risk.

[BOAC]

As a grizzled old F/E said to me once - "the fuel tanks are for fuel, old boy, not for air!" - was he perhaps the one that died in the AF Concorde crash where 'no air in the tank' was a major contributory factor? "grizzled old FE/s" are not always right. The real issue is the pressure then applied to crews to "commit to destination" at a single runway destination in the event of delays - this is contrary to EUOPS which gives the commander the discretion to do so - but not as a regular planning event, and only (my bold and underline)
"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".

No mention of 'insufficient' holding fuel. Where is this 'pressure' coming from? If from the company, point out the regs to them. Incidentally, I frequently arrived at LGW on a nice day at a quiet time with no requirement for any holding. The odds are you would be vectored 'straight in' and not fly most of the arrival.

[737Jock]

with as little as 6mins. destination loiter fuel above minimum diversion fuel

So the inflight fuel check worked out perfectly BOAC.

The issue here is about landing assured. In our manual:
Note:
A landing is “assured” if, in the judgement of the Flight Crew, it could be completed in the event of any forecast deterioration in the weather and plausible single failures of ground and/or airborne facilities, e.g. CAT II/III to CAT I.


Basicly our manual states a flow diagram, which enables crews to commit to destination if landing is assured and EAT or maximum delay known.

Offcourse there is always the option to divert. But the question I believe meikleour is asking is how wise it is to go to a busy single runway environment with only 6minutes extra. Realising that the alternate is in the same TMA and also busy (although not as busy as LGW) and single runway.

[BOAC]

So the inflight fuel check worked out perfectly BOAC. - exactly, but I read '6 mins' as a 'problem'?

When JAROPS carried the definition of assured it also specified 'two independent' runways' (which can cross). Although that has 'disappeared', you still need to satisfy yourself that an abort on the runway possibly with evacuated pax would still allow you to 'complete the landing' and whether an abort is 'plausible'. If you believe that is ok, then do it. I never did.

[Meikleour]

737Jock: EXACTLY! Thanks.

[BOAC]

OK, my apologies, I misread your post. It was not a problem.

[737Jock]

When JAROPS carried the definition of assured it also specified 'two independent' runways' (which can cross). Although that has 'disappeared', you still need to satisfy yourself that an abort on the runway possibly with evacuated pax would still allow you to 'complete the landing' and whether an abort is 'plausible'. If you believe that is ok, then do it. I never did.

I'm not sure, but thats not whats in our manuals.

But aren't you confused with the planning stage and departing without an alternate?

Dispatch to a destination is permitted with no destination alternate aerodrome provided that the conditions stated in Section 8.1.2.2.2.4, “Destination Alternate and 3% ERA Alternate Aerodromes” are met.

The fuel required is:

- Taxi Fuel.
- Trip Fuel as per Basic Planning.
- Contingency Fuel calculated as for Basic Planning.
- Additional Fuel not less than the fuel necessary to fly for 15 minutes at 1500*ft (450 m) above aerodrome elevation in ISA.
- Final Reserve Fuel.
- Extra Fuel if required by the Commander.

The requirements are:

At least one usable destination alternate aerodrome must be selected for each IFR flight unless:

Either

- Dispatched under the Alternative Flight Planning Procedures in Section 8.1.7.4.5, “No Destination Alternate Aerodrome Procedure”.

- The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing, or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours.

- Two separate runways are available and usable at the destination 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 (ETA) at the destination, 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.

Note:
Runways on the same aerodrome are considered to be separate runways when.

They are separate landing surfaces which may overlay or cross such that if one of the runways is blocked, it will not prevent the planned type of operations on the other runway.

Each runway shall have a separate approach procedure based on a separate navigation aid.

Or

The destination aerodrome is isolated.

Eventually you have to commit somewhere, be it a taxiway.

[BOAC]

But aren't you confused with the planning stage and departing without an alternate? No, landing 'assured' is normally an expression used in the in-flight section, not the planning section. "When JAROPS carried the definition of assured it also specified 'two independent' runways" WAS in the in-flight consideration section. It all comes down to an individual assessment of what constitutes an 'assured landing' doesn't it? Why not ask your company what defines an assured landing and whether a blocked single runway would be a 'plausible single failure of ground facilities'? If the say no, and if you personally are content to 'risk' this (presumably on a potentially regular 'SOP' basis rather than that awful 'one-off event') that is your decision as long as the other pilot agrees. If you want a laugh, BA at one stage told us (LGW crews) we could use LHR as the 'second runway' for LGW, and I actually flew with a few brain-washed BA cadets who thought that was a jolly good idea.

For me I was far happier to divert from LGW to BOH with SOU en route or to STN with LTN and SEN in range than risk mumbo-jumbo airways blocking the airfield.

Yes, I agree, you DO need to land somewhere eventually.:)

[FERetd]

BOAC Quote:-"- was he perhaps the one that died in the AF Concorde crash where 'no air in the tank' was a major contributory factor? "grizzled old FE/s" are not always right."

Surely if that was the case he would have said it in French.

So "grizzled old F/Es (not FE/s) are not always right". Are grizzled old Captains always right? Evidently not.

You sound a bit like a FIGJAM to me, with over 16000 posts to show for it.

[BOAC]

Oh poor sensitive F/E AND a sense of humour caption too............QRH!!??

Happy new year to you - if possible.
You sound a bit like a FIGJAM to me, with over 16000 posts to show for it. - still trying to catch Beagle up (and watching Lightning Mate coming up 'behind' - and I KNOW that is not a good scenario).

[FERetd]

BOAC, Why don't you just...... no wait, wait, I am getting off topic here. But I think you know what I was going to say.

Happy New Year to you, as well.

Yes, that's what I was going to say.

[737Jock]

BOAC Ok I can accept that fully, in an ideal world we would commit to a multiple runway airport. But that jar-ops definition seems impractical.

But what about the following...LGW has delays of around 20 minutes but you don't have holding fuel. STN is the alternate, but is at least 25 minutes to divert to and also a single runway.

Weather is nice in both airfields, why divert to STN? A diversion from alternate + reserve fuel to a single runway is also a commitment to that airport. After all you will land close to CNR.

Committing to LGW would result in landing with final reserve plus 5 minutes.

So should all alternates be multi-runway?

Offcourse the answer is don't arrive with minimum fuel at busy single runway airports, but even then you can still get into this situation.

[bubbers44]

I was put in that situation landing south at SFO, alternate OAK, same distance. We were put on a 15 mile final and we were approaching minimum fuel to miss and go to alternate. We had holding and finally approach clearance in a B737 but had to go downwind 15 miles to turn base to return. I knew I legally now didn't have all the legal fuel to miss and divert to OAK but I was lined up on approach to SFO and would land with less fuel diverting to Alt than just landing so I did. Legalities make aviation safer unless you find common sense makes it even safer to do what you feel will work better.

[BOAC]

But what about the following - we are going full circle here. This is why EUOPS gives the commander the discretion to weigh up the pros and cons of diverting v committing (I'm not going to post the para yet again). You need to weigh up the options. Set off to div with other 'bolt holes' en route should that double occurrence happen - diversion AND blocked div runway - or commit to dest and take a chance on a blocked runway there. This is what Captains are paid to do. By committing you probably have around 30 mins 'extra' holding fuel in most cases, but you need to consider the ?options? if, at F Reserve+300 on finals, someone evacuates on the runway in front of you. There is no easy answer!

My philosophy was always to favour the div, ideally making sure there were other options should the div become unusable.

Whichever way you cut it on the day, let's remind ourselves how many a/c have actually run out of fuel in the history of the current fuel planning criteria.

[737Jock]

Maybe I'm not being clear BOAC.

Do you agree that diverting to a single runway airport at alternate+reserve is basicly the same as committing to that airport?

If so, why are you in favour of diverting away from the single runway destination, while you have been given a known delay that will allow you to land slightly above Final reserve?

If not, what is the difference in your view?

In my view there is no statistical difference between either the destination alternate becoming blocked or the alternate becoming blocked, but both at final res + 300.

[BOAC]

You need to weigh up the options........................There is no easy answer! - horses for courses. Your decision, not mine for you.

My view, and mine only, as expressed, is where there are 'other' options around the div airfield (eg as given) I prefer a div. Also if dest is 'busy' and div 'quiet' likewise. Otherwise, got a coin?

[737Jock]

I'm not asking you to make a decision for me. I can make my own thank you very much. I'm asking you to answer the questions, not evade them like a seasoned politician.

But I'm glad you can see that the old jar-ops landing assured only with multiple runways was a bit impractical. Any diversion to a single runway at alternate + fr would immediately violate that rule. Thats why you don't want to answer the questions?

But anyway this is why I don't mess about with minimum fuel in the London TMA when its busy, fuel gives me options in a busy environment where most airfields are single runways.
Likewise for Madrid, where diversion airfields are scarce and single runway and atc is unable to even see the sky high level where NATS are operating.

I really don't know what you are on about BOAC, but it seems you think you are very experienced. That people should praise you for that, but all you seem to be able to do is scream "I'm/You/He is the commander"
If thats all you can do with your experience then maybe you should retire from this forum, like you did from aviation in 2004. Cause it ain't helpful to anybody and it isn't pretty either. Otherwise you might just want to share your experience, so that other people don't have to make the mistakes you made to gain that experience.

[FERetd]

737Jock Quote:- "I really don't know what you are on about BOAC, but it seems you think you are very experienced. That people should praise you for that, but all you seem to be able to do is scream "I'm/You/He is the commander"


I think that your assessment of BOAC seems quite accurate.

I thought that he sounded rather like a "FIGJAM", others might think a "THRUSH".

I don't think that I have ever met BOAC but I have surely seen him many times. Wasn't he the one drinking by himself?

In my experience, Captains that needed to work at being the Captain were not particularly good, or pleasant or respected. Fortunately, they were few and far between.

The vast majority of the Captains with whom I shared the cockpit were all round "good guys" - team leaders without the need to be the "boss".

And back on topic, the fuel required was, of course, the Captain's decision, but it was always discussed.

I have just read BOAC's post after yours and note that he knows a good therapist. Why am I not surprised?

[BOAC]

Perhaps we should now try to drag this thread back on track.

Are we now all agreed that KLM does not make crews "takes risks by taking as less as possible fuel" and that their use, and other airlines' use, of SCF is legal under EUOPS?

[Klassenoudste]

Manage the energy with speed if you can instead of pulling speedbrake as soon as the FMS says you are too high.
Perhaps it is my limited understanding of descent planning, but what exactly is the difference between using speedbrakes or increasing speed when the result is that you regain your profile with idle thrust?

In both cases, up the speed or speedbrakes, you add drag against your VNAV profile and you essentially have 'wasted' energy have you not?

[Checkboard]

You waste MORE energy with speedbrake than with parasite drag.

[sleeper]

BOAC Perhaps we should now try to drag this thread back on track.

Are we now all agreed that KLM does not make crews "takes
risks by taking as less as possible fuel" and that their use, and other
airlines' use, of SCF is legal under EUOPS?

Hear Hear.

[Klassenoudste]

Please elaborate. The only difference I see is flight time (=fuel saving from less time the engines are at flight idle sure)

[Magnetic Iron]

Now fuel corporate culture is the key here

i take a little extra fuel because Mr. murphy can show up any time, and many times I have not diverted because of that 400 kgs of extra fuel.


i have asked myself why should I put myself in a higher stress situation by taking less fuel, is the company going to congratulate me for taking less fuel when I have to divert to my alternate ?

Have you ever been in that situation with a airport closed down and you are holding and they dont know when it will open, with a lot of traffic in front of you, you are about to divert to your alternate, what are you thinking ?

when the weather could go bad in the tempo situation

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best

Common sense

[Giolla]

The DEGAS report is a general assessment of some practices showing up along the recent years where the use of statistics and numbers play a high end role.

PIA for the pilots and valuable numbers for the beancounters, solid part of any present industry.
Make stupid mistakes and you will lose a ship (Concordia) or plane (Air France) plus human lives.
Concordia showed us the Titanic disaster all over again. The wrong guy in the pilot station.
In the Airline industry such behavior is mainly executed by the BoD and relevant staff.

The DEGAS report points on the present culture within the circles of International Airliners. The very reason of the existence of PPRuNe.