View Full Version : Fuel Planning - a new thread.
Beagle – I am not sure exactly what you were asking in the Dutch TV thread regarding 'contingency', but I thought it better to start a new thread on fuel planning to avoid pollution of the others.
In 1998 (I think) the CAA carried out a review of companies’ fuel policies in particular relating to arrival at ‘busy’ London airports, but obviously applicable to other places. I cannot find either my copy of the CAA SOC nor find any links to any AICs on this, so the ‘advice’ appears to have been withdrawn – wonder why? I will carry on searching my ‘archives’.
This extract from an old CHIRP, and my highlighting
CAA Special Objectives Check (SOC) AIC 83/2008 (Pink 149
Page 6; Para 5.2.6 Recommendation 3: Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that, as interpreted by fleet managers, training and line pilots, these do not result in a perception that aircraft may be permitted to depart with fuel amounts less than must be calculated in accordance with formulae specified in the operations manual (or equivalent document). Where such formulae are known not to address all circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen, pragmatic guidance should be specified to ensure that appropriate adjustments are made. This review might be managed through a schedule applied by the Operations Quality Manager so as to ensure that company policy endures with time.
The CAA SOC also addressed the issue of delays:
Page 4; Para 4.3.4 Recommendation 2: Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
NB This could logically be construed to allow you to increase trip fuel by a minimum of 20 minutes inbound London majors (but see below for Nigels…………….)
Whilst an operator might elect to use day-to-day arrival delay statistics to justify not complying with the current AIC recommendation for entry into UK airspace, it should be remembered that two of the major UK airports in Southeast England have only single runways. Some of you might remember the challenge presented to the UK ATC system in the wake of the extended closure of Stansted Airport following the Korean Airlines B747 accident. Those operators who elect not to carry the recommended holding fuel for entry into the UK might wish to reflect on the effect of a runway closure or similar disruption to the inbound traffic flow when risk assessing their sector fuel policy.
Also, a reminder - in a situation similar to that in report (3) above, there is no benefit in forewarning ATC of an impending low fuel situation. ATC will only react to a PAN/MAYDAY; otherwise equal priority will be given to all other aircraft.
A similar (now untraceable!!?? – I understand there was ‘pressure’ from airlines) AIC pink warned pilots that ‘No Delay’ in the UK meant a max of 20 mins holding and recommended crews allowed for this in fuel planning inbound to ‘Londons’.
The CAA position (was) is?? that Contingency is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN for unexpected events, and cannot be PLANNED for EXPECTED holding
For those interested, a BA fleet manager (name redacted to save embarrassment but available at the right price :)) issued this to all Airbus trainers around the 2000’s.
"The CAA AIC 36/98 states "no delay expected means you can expect to hold for 20 minutes". Understandably some pilots believe that this demands that they must uplift 20 minutes of extra fuel. However the BA Fuel Policy (which is approved by the CAA) states that SWORD/ CIRRUS flight plan fuel should be carried unless there are sound operational or economic reasons for not doing so, when consideration should be given to the 3 Month Route Statistics. PS. BA will eventually introduce Statistical Contingency Fuel. The aim of this will be to achieve a 99% success rate at arrivals at destination with at least Diversion, and Reserve."
Found the AIC - AIC 82/2003 (Pink 58)
AEROPLANES INBOUND TO THE UK WITH FUEL RESERVES APPROACHING MINIMUM
1 Incidents of crews reporting an inability to hold in the vicinity of their destination aerodrome prior to landing because of a shortage
of fuel have indicated a lack of understanding by operators and crews of the situation existing in busy UK terminal areas.
2 A number of aeroplanes appear to be approaching the UK with no more than minimum reserves of fuel. Aeroplane commanders who determine, in flight, that their aeroplane will have little or no fuel above that which their company specifies as minimum reserves, should establish that the weather conditions at the destination and alternate aerodromes fulfil specified criteria and that no delay is expected before commencing an approach.
3 The information concerning delays that is passed to the crew by the controller is the best available at the time and takes account of the expected volume of traffic at the aeroplane's estimated arrival time. If the information available to the controller indicates a reasonably easy flow of traffic, and Estimated Approach Times (EAT) are not being issued for the destination aerodrome, the response to a request about delay will be 'No delay expected'.
3.1 'No delay expected' means in these circumstances:
'Do not anticipate being required to remain in a holding pattern longer than 20 minutes before commencing an approach'.
3.2 Where a delay greater than 20 minutes is expected, the controller will pass an EAT. When delays are expected to be less than 20 minutes, controllers will, when requested, give a general indication of the expected delay.
4 Traffic situations in the terminal areas can change very quickly even though 'No delay expected' will often mean precisely that, crews should expect that on occasions some holding will be required before they are fitted into the final approach pattern.
5 It is important, therefore, that operators and crews should take a realistic view of the amount of fuel required, to satisfy the minimum fuel overhead destination requirements.
6 Crews should plan to arrive overhead a destination aerodrome with, at the very least, fuel sufficient to:
(a) Make an approach to land; and
(b) carry out a missed approach; and
(c) fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry out the subsequent approach and landing; and
(d) for aeroplanes with reciprocating engines, fuel to fly for 45 minutes; or for turbo-jet or turbo-prop aeroplanes, fuel to hold for
30 minutes at 1500 ft above aerodrome elevation in ISA calculated with the estimated landing mass on arrival at the alternate or the destination, when no alternate is required.
7 When the planned alternate aerodrome is in the same busy area as the destination, for instance Heathrow and Gatwick, the track miles on which the fuel requirement for flying to the alternate is calculated should be realistically assessed taking account of the extended routing which can reasonably be expected during busy periods.
8 Pilots should also be aware that although every effort will be made to expedite their arrival, a call such as 'Fuel Emergency' has no status in the UK and ATC cannot give priority to an aircraft with a shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared.
9 A radio call prefixed by MAYDAY for distress or PAN for urgency will ensure priority handling but the aeroplane's actual fuel state should reflect the seriousness of the emergency call. A commander should only make such a call when he believes the aircraft to be in danger, not because the fuel state has fallen below the amount needed to comply with formula given above.
10 For the future, it is not anticipated that any special procedure will be introduced for fuel emergencies but the Authority is considering ways of providing more accurate forecasting of delays.
Still searching for the CAA SOC on fuel planning.
737Jock
31st Dec 2012, 16:27
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1cor.pdf
Pink AIC no longer valid, however the CAA manual of air traffic services states this:
16 Expected Approach Time
16.1 Approach Control shall calculate EATs for aircraft likely to be delayed before commencing an intermediate approach.
16.2 Unless otherwise instructed controllers shall pass EATs to aircraft with whom they are in contact. EATs shall not normally be issued when the delay is expected to be less than 20 minutes. The statement “no delay expected” is only to be used if it genuinely reflects the situation. However, at the request of a pilot, controllers are to give a general indication of the likely delay based on the information available at that time.
So any delay up to 20 minutes is still no delay.
737Jock
31st Dec 2012, 16:36
The CAA position (was) is?? that Contingency is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN for unexpected events, and cannot be PLANNED for EXPECTED holding
Which is very interesting indeed.
Cause how can anybody statistically determine unexpected events. For statistics to work something needs to happen on a regular basis or should at least be expected. Thus unexpected events can't be determined statistically.
Ergo, its just beancounter language for reducing fuel loads based on thin air.
CAA manual of air traffic services states this: - how many pilots read that?
737Jock
31st Dec 2012, 16:53
Does it matter, the air traffic controllers read it. Who gives out EAT's? Who sends you into the hold stating "no delay".
Its clear that the air traffic rules in the UK still assume 20 minutes of holding to be "no delay".
In my company the removal of the pink AIC regarding 20 minutes holding was announced the day it was removed. However the rule from the air traffic services manual is clear. No delay means up to 20 minutes holding!!!
So the removal of the pink AIC is no reason to adjust fuel planning.
wiggy
31st Dec 2012, 17:46
Statistical contingency seems to be cover more than most arrivals I've done into LHR/LGW over the years. It also avoids landing with stupid amounts of fuel at 0500Z on a CAVOK and "no delay" day on say, a SIN-LHR ( 5% plus is probably a landing fuel of 10-12 tonnes on something like a 744 ....
The only trick with SCF on the plan is recognising when it might not be appropriate (fog, snow, TS, strong winds?), and isn't that decision covered by airmanship......ah, sorry, hush my mouth???.
Denti
31st Dec 2012, 20:09
CAA manual of air traffic services states this:
- how many pilots read that?
I hope they read at least their route manual. I dunno about others, but in our LIDO routemanual it says:
Low Fuel Holding Procedures and Associated RTF Phraseology
General
RT phraseology "MINIMUM FUEL" does not imply that an ACFT is in an emergency. Therefore, ATC are not required to give priority to pilots who declare "MINIMUM FUEL".
Within the UK, EATs are only required to be issued whenever the anticipated delay to commence the initial approach segment of an instrument approach procedure is expected to be equal to or greater than 20 MIN.
If in any doubt as to whether or not airborne holding is needed, pilots shall seek clarification from ATC.
UK Procedures and RTF Phraseology
When airborne holding is needed and the delay is expected to be less than that requiring the issuing of EATs, controllers shall explicitly instruct pilots to hold at the required exact reporting point and provide the pilot with an estimate of the delay.
The RT phrase "NO DELAY" shall be only used when holding is not expected.
Controllers shall issue EATs whenever the anticipated delay to commence the initial approach segment of an instrument approach procedure is expected to be equal to or greater than 20 MIN.
When EATs are required, they shall be passed sufficiently in advance to permit pilots to plan their flight paths accordingly.
To me that suggests to check my flightplan if it has the required 20 minutes on it, if not i will uplift that as extra with a remark pointing to this route manual entry. However, taking no extra to busy airports is, well, not entirely wise, doesn't really matter if it is london, frankfurt, paris, madrid or any other busy airport. And yes, my company usually uses 3% contigency or 5 minutes, whichever is greater. We do have the statistical data of fuel used (trip plus contigency) on our OFP, however that is only there as information.
I think this link (http://www.ifalpa.org/store/doc9976.pdf) from the 'KLM' thread on R&N should also be here. NB the document linked is an 'advance copy' but is in my opinion an excellent document for all to read and as a discussion document.
It will require some serious time to absorb.
A few 'instant' observations:
FAR121.619 (dispensation with alternate at planning stage) does not use the 6 hr flight time limit of EUOPS
The document (at 4.2) re-inforces the need to include expected holding in TRIP fuel, not 'extra' or 'contingency'
Thorough coverage of the statistical contingency method is available for those who do not know of it.
One thing evident in the concepts is that the use of VMC as a long-stop at a destination airfield does in theory require competence in a visual manoeuvre and it is becoming apparent that we may not be able to rely on this with the newer generation of pilots.
I am also coming to the conclusion that perhaps the whole concept of 'contingency fuel' needs to be overhauled. It seems already that in a few airlines contingency is acquiring a somewhat blurred status which sort of looks at expected delays etc rather than just the 'unknown' factors.
I hope they read at least their route manual. - yes, I hope so too, but why not make it a little clearer? The AIC referred to was clear. The BA quote I posted suggests that perhaps it was not in favour with management, and there again we have this perceived 'pressure' on crews. Your (sensible) look to see if '20 mins' to your CFP is added will, I bet, find not. Should it be? However, taking no extra to busy airports is, well, not entirely wise, doesn't really matter if it is london, frankfurt, paris, madrid or any other busy airport - in fact it was considered to matter, since the whole reason for the AIC was the arival (in 1998 I think) of 3 'foreign' aircraft in the London TMA all on PAN calls short of fuel at more or less the same time after holding.
Statistical contingency seems to work reasonably well, but I note, wiggy, that you have consciously or subconsciously included the words a "no delay" day along with contingency. Right or not? Lastly your last para The only trick with SCF on the plan is recognising when it might not be appropriate (fog, snow, TS, strong winds?), and isn't that decision covered by airmanship......ah, sorry, hush my mouth???. - sums it all up, doesn't it? Does one perceive undue 'pressure' from above in exercising that awful word, airmanship?
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 10:49
It also avoids landing with stupid amounts of fuel at 0500Z on a CAVOK and "no delay" day on say, a SIN-LHR ( 5% plus is probably a landing fuel of 10-12 tonnes on something like a 744 ....
True but consider shorthaul flights where the minimum contingency is usually 5minutes.
I have no data but in shorthaul ops statistical data could point to greater amounts of contingency fuel needing to be loaded than the standard 5min or 5%.
BTW, it seems that FR and EZY are both using 5% contingency as the standard, and will only go 3% ERA if required due to weight constrictions (off course 5min being the minimum).
Contingency fuel on shorthaul flights does not give a whole lot of extra margin, and I have never seen it lead to landing with stupid amounts of fuel.
But for clarity all aircraft use different amounts of fuel, so for me it's not entirely clear what endurance 10T of fuel will give on a 747. Could we express it in time please?
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 11:14
The only trick with SCF on the plan is recognising when it might not be appropriate (fog, snow, TS, strong winds?), and isn't that decision covered by airmanship......ah, sorry, hush my mouth???.
Just fog, snow, TS, strong winds?
What if a busy destination closes on a nice day and everybody starts diverting to the nearest alternate which is planned for in the most direct routing?
Maybe not a problem for that longhaul flight with 5% contingency, different matter for shorthaul imho...
My main concern is actually not contingency fuel, but realistic alternate fuel! The amount of fuel used routing to the alternate was what bit those Ryanair flights in the ass.
FR2054 landed with 1029kgs final reserve 1104kgs.
FR5998 landed with 1160kgs final reserve 1119kgs.
FR2054 plog was 5887kgs they took 6500kgs. 600kg extra. Diverted at 2900kgs.
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra. Diverted at 2900kgs with minimum 2664kgs.
FR2054 will have had a similar diversion fuel as FR5998. Both aircraft diverted early, approximately a margin of 250kg extra alternate fuel. For FR2054 this was not enough to avoid landing below final reserve. FR5998 landed just above final reserve. Both needed a mayday to achieve this.
This can happen to anyone! But how realistic are our alternate fuels?
Contingency fuel on shorthaul flights does not give a whole lot of extra margin - I think you are still missing the point of contingency fuel? 5% is normally more than adequate and has been for decades What do you think you carry it for?
Honest question 737jock, sine we fly for the same outfit: how many times have you landed in London Gatwick with less than Final Reserve+alternate?
Sure, no delay may mean anything up to 20 minutes but I have regularly taken plog fuel and RARELY even approached landing below FInal Reserve+alternate. What is the fuss all about?
Take extra fuel if you think you need it, like during rush hour, no matter what the definition of 'no delay' is.
Robert G Mugabe
1st Jan 2013, 12:37
PENKO
Unfortunately we seem to have certain base captains or base standards captains who seem to take a view that contingency is there for foreseen events that requiring the uplift of extra fuel ( EAI WAI TURB CB etc ) :ooh:
PENKO - thanks for asking! I WAS hoping we could generate some serious attention on this thread to how we feel planning should happen. My personal view is that PLOGS should change now to show both contingency AND an extra item - 'holding fuel' (based on statistics if desired and zero if appropriate) and CLEARLY annotated so crews can identify the premise on which the PLOG has been constructed. I feel any apparent 'blurring' of holding into contingency will only mask the facts.
Regarding your 'how many times.....' question, I would like all those who are vociferous about company 'pressures' restricting their fuel choice to tell us all how many times they have landed BELOW that figure and how many times they have had to declare either a MAYDAY or PAN for fuel ie how many times have they ACTUALLY not had 'enough'?
requiring the uplift of extra fuel ( EAI WAI TURB CB etc - surely these items, if forecast, can easily be foreseen (just as with ETOPS icing 'extra') and be annotated on the PLOG against an increased trip? I have said many times before, if not and you 'run out' of fuel, divert. In your report highlight the pressure you feel from Cpt xxx that prevented you from taking the obvious extra so the bean counters know who to charge the costs too. Capt xxx cannot respond by suggesting you should have continued with insufficient fuel, can he/she? That is the only way you will stop this if it is happening BUT ASSUMES YOU HAVE MADE THE NECESSARY SENSIBLE AND CORRECT DECISIONS EN_ROUTE!. Put it in writing.
yoyonow
1st Jan 2013, 13:15
BOAC,
Rather than the out of date AIC, perhaps the CAA Safety Notice SN-2012/011 would shine some light on the current regulations.
YoYo-
That SN is also cancelled! (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5050)
BOAC, my company for some time actually required us to file an ASR each and every time we landed below Final Reserve+Alternate Fuel, just to monitor the situation. I never filed a report, although I quite often took the flight plan minimum. 5% contingency and direct routings are normally quite enough to land with at least five minutes worth of dithering before things get a bit more 'interesting'.
I take the pragmatic approach. If I can't find a valid argument to load extra fuel I won't. I know taking minimum fuel has its implications and I know that that means that I will divert much sooner than my colleagues who take a few hundred kilo's extra, but that is what my company wants me to do on a normal day and I have no problems with that. However if there is any hint of trouble, I will not hesitate to 'fill her up' so to speak.
I've noticed a funny correlation. The captains who refuse to carry minimum fuel on a CAVOK day are often the ones who paradoxically:
- fly faster than econ speed
- fly lower than optimum level
- moan about fuel saving measures
- never quite 'fill her up' when they REALLY SHOULD
Now what does that tell us? :E
Now to come back to your point BOAC, our plogs will clearly indicate when and where extra fuel is used, if ever. Usually it is left to the crew to decide if extra fuel is needed and I prefer this to statistical planning. I prefer to have total control over the 'extra' fuel. I agree with your comment about blurring statistical fuel in the holding fuel. My company does publish fuel statistics showing how much extra fuel is actually (NOT!) needed, but very few pilots use this information.
Robert Mugabe, then those base/standard captains are wrong. The 5% is for unforeseen circumstances, period. Anyway, anti ice and turbulence are never going to cost you more be than your discretionary 300 kg (assuming you are in FR?).
Our definition of a contingency is: deviation from the planned operating conditions. There is no way they can argument that a flight plan on a CAVOK day should have the same planned burn as a flight plan on a grey winter's day. If you plan to fly into icing, then you have to plan for the extra burn.
Another question I like to ask any colleague flying with me who insists one a 'couple-a-hundred' extra for no apparent reason: are they happy to burn their alternate fuel in the destination hold when landing is assured? Usually they start huffing and puffing at this question but it shows their unrealistic expectations. Because not one of them would divert on a CAVOK day with landing assured...yet they do want extra fuel all the time.
And again, just to make it absolutely clear. I am no fuel cowboy. I am no hero. I will take as much fuel as necessary, which might quite easily mean an extra half an hour or 45 minutes when faced with thunderstorms, foreseeable operational difficulties or even operations to short runways on which you can't land with flap problems, just to name a few.
YoYo-
That SN is also cancelled! (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5050) - coincidence or what - Cx 30 Nov2012? Are the CAA monitoring PPRune and getting nervous?our plogs will clearly indicate when and where extra fuel is used, if ever. Usually it is left to the crew to decide if extra fuel is needed and I prefer this to statistical planning. - me too, but I thought it would be useful to be able to SEE the expected holding fuel allocated (or not...), since if it is (correctly) included in the PLOG in trip fuel (if only!!:ugh:) or some sort of 'fudged' contingency figure it would not be obvious.
I'm waiting to see how many of the 'they won't let me take enough fuel' come forward with proof. Like you I would happily operate into a CAVOK field in 'quiet time' with PLOG fuel - and probably arrive with a reasonable excess. From what you tell us about the ASR policy in XXXXX I would assume there must be lots!:p
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 16:10
Penko:
How many times I landed with less the final reserve + alternate in LGW, not thanks to the flight plan though.
I have however landed with final reserve + alternate after holding for 25 min in LGW. And often I have to burn some of the "extra" fuel that I load.
And no I don't feel any pressure from above, never have been questioned about the fuel I take. And from what I see in the techlog, I'm neither low nor high with the fuel I land with.
after holding for 25 min in LGW. And often I have to burn some of the "extra" fuel that I load. - so the system works. Now, the important bit - were you dragged into the office and asked to explain the extra fuel on these occasions?
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 16:27
BOAC I'm not comcerned about contingency. But Does it work?
My concern is what happens after those 25 minutes and I shoot off to the alternate. Mind you I'm talking about a planning perspective here, in the air all that counts is landing with final reserve. So simply planning:
As you can see 2 of the 3FR aircraft diverted well above final reserve + alternate was reached. They didn't do a go-around so that saved some fuel as well. But they all had to declare a mayday to land with final reserve. Ergo to me it seems their alternate fuel was insufficient.
Or should it be expected to immediately declare a mayday once you elect to divert at final reserve + alternate?
Is it normal that any delay will lead to a mayday, or is our alternate fuel being planned too tight.
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 16:39
As I said in my company there is no pressure on what fuel to take.
No fuel league tables either.
But that's not to say we never get debacle from the beancounters, but this is targeted to the entire pilot group not individuals.
BOAC I'm not comcerned about contingency. - I did not mention contingency - I asked about the 'pressure' placed on you for taking the 'extra'.
Regarding RY MAD-VLC - I would prefer not to pollute this thread with yet another RY 'inquest'. I do not know the answer. If the IAA report does not cover your question then I suggest you re-open the relevant thread. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/491559-4-ryanair-aircraft-declare-fuel-emergency-same-time.html.and ask.
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 16:53
Ok fair enough.
Let me ask you this then.
Should company's allow for some delay, x minutes, when they calculate the alternate fuel?
If so, what should x be?
And if so all airports, or based on traffic movement?
reputable operators have a well established performance and fuel consumption monitoring program. Based on those observations the operator usually adds a so-called compensation fuel based on statistical overburn for a particular route flown. :ok:
How many times I landed with less the final reserve + alternate in LGW, not thanks to the flight plan though.
I have however landed with final reserve + alternate after holding for 25 min in LGW. And often I have to burn some of the "extra" fuel that I load.
Your point being?
So you are saying that on a beautiful normal day you ended up holding for 25 minutes and still landed with CMR. That means you usually load up quite a lot of extra fuel. However, the company just wanted you to divert in stead of uploading all that fuel ALL THE TIME. So what you did was going against SOP. Yeah you delivered your pax at destination, but you burnt quite a lot of fuel needlessly on all those other occasions when you landed without significant delay! The company doesn't want that. They clearly state so in the OM. They pay your salary. Why do you not obey?
Or should it be expected to immediately declare a mayday once you elect to divert at final reserve + alternate?
Why on would you?
Say you divert on CMR (Altn+Fin Res)
At this point you should have already been well comfortable with the possibility of a diversion close to the limit. Maybe you should have diverted earlier if you think the situation warranted it. Maybe it's just not your day. Anyway...
You divert.
If ATC cooperates and everything goes to plan there is no need to declare ANYTHING.
If ATC does not cooperate, you declare a PAN, because you think you may end up below your 30 minutes final reserve.
If ATC still does not cooperate, and you know you will by now land below final reserve, yes, then it is not your day and you declare a mayday.
That is how the system works and if you play it like this, who can blame you? (assuming you did all your preflight planning correctly?)
Anyway, is this not exactly what the extra 30 minutes are for? i.e. to cover the fact that it just might not be your day?
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 17:36
I'm not that sure what you are asking Penko, I answered your question didn't I?
Point being I guess is that if I hadn't taken the extra fuel I would have either had to divert to STN or LGW.
But in general it means I always have 20 minutes to hold at LGW! And from what I see in the techlog so do most of our colleagues.
Contingency fuel is for unforeseen conditions, as such you cannot use it in the planning phase for foreseen delays into LGW, MAD etc. But it can be used for differrent flightlevels, unexpected icing, wind different then forecast etc...
I don't know how statistics can be used in contingency fuel, but if statistics are used to determine delays at airports this inferres that such an avarage delay is expected. And can you then still call it contingency fuel?
But maybe companies who use statistical contingency have another defenition of contingency then we have, our ops manual says:
Fuel to cover deviations from the planned operating conditions such as unfavourable variations in cruise altitude or track, deviations from the forecast wind values or any other unforeseen adverse circumstances.
My main question is how reliable is the fuel that is calculated as alternate fuel? I personally have my doubts when I see directs in the alternate route description, or not taking into account VOR approaches that might need to be flown fully stabalised. I believe they are somewhat optimistic.
I'm asking you to stop wasting fuel needlessly. 737jock, if most of our LGW colleagues land with a similar surplus of fuel, it just means that the company is loosing a LOT of money on surplus fuel. Again. The company WANT you to divert in the situation you describe. I can't put it any clearer than that. On a beautiful quiet CAVOK day, load plog fuel and divert as necessary. That is SOP. I've never had to divert yet, but I'll do so gladly if it comes to it.
Now if there is a systemic problem in LGW, the company will wake up to the fact if we have mass diversions. Now it is just the beancounters moaning about those stupid pilots who 'buy' too much fuel. Anyway, the statistics for LGW, have you seen them? How much fuel is burnt over plog? I'll let you do the math, it's your base :ok:
By the way, we don't necessarily fly VOR approaches stabilized. You have a GPS don't you, two of them last time I checked! So fly managed and save fuel. I wouldn't say this if I would not encounter many colleagues who insist to fly a VOR or NDB approach stabilized on a CAVOK day with GPS primary...
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 17:48
Yes Penko, but what I'm thinking here is that in the OLD days when fuel was cheap pilots did not really look at 100kg more or less. Or at least i'm led to believe such was the case by older generations. As such there was more fuel in hand.
Nowadays fuel is expensive, and for all companies its the single biggest cost. So all companies are trying to reduce fuel loads as much as they can. I can see a situation develop where multiple aircraft have to divert and all declare a mayday due to overoptimistic routing leading to not enough alternate fuel being planned.
And in my mind such a situation will not develop when adverse conditions are expected.
Half an hour final reserve is not much, and it won't even total to 30 minutes if a go-around is involved.
So maybe there should be a legal element of contingency fuel regarding the alternate fuel, call it alternate contingency? We are talking in this thread about how we think fuel should be planned versus how it is currently planned.
I'm just talking planning here. Personally I will either commit to destination when landing is assured, or divert early if it is not. Most likely I won't wait until the meter hits CMR. But that is practical, not planning.
Mass diversions on a CAVOK day. That is an interesting scenario for the policymakers amongst us. With this you enter the realm of true risk management, i.e. the safest option:
stay in bed.
Next safest: call in sick.
Then load fuel for a return trip etc. etc.
You see what I mean?
Ok. Say you fly to Amsterdam during rush hour and you know that a closure of Amsterdam will clog (haha) up Rotterdam within one second. Yep. That's interesting. If you think that this is big enough of a concern for any destination you serve, then by all means, select a second or a third alternate. That is what you are paid for.
Anyway, if you look at it logically, only the aircraft already on approach will have a problem (or not as they will 'fit' in Rotterdam). The rest will divert enroute which gives far more options. At least, if they are smart enough.
on a practical note, uplifting more fuel doesn't mean increased burn off provided one ask for direct, chooses opt levels, flies managed speed. Most fuel is saved during the approach. Even on 330, where any extra fuel is believed to be wasted up to 50%, I uplift up to 1500-2000 kg more, when I feel it's needed, and upon shut down the burn off is the same or sometimes less. Isn't that what matters? Fuel in the wings isn't wasted but preserved. :ok:
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 18:02
I'm not wasting fuel needlessly Penko! I'm complying with a requirement to be able to hold for 20 minutes. Since my alternates are all london airports I don't see how that is wasting fuel.
Sorry but I have to protest against the idea that because fuel is not used it is not needed.
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 18:03
Oh regarding VOR approaches, as soon as you have an engine failure you can't do a managed approach. Or is that also unlikely, maybe we should scrap the requirement for takeoff alternates entirely.
Regarding your suggested alternate contingency... again isn't that incorporated in your final reserve? (question!)
Now I know we should not land below final reserve. But what you are suggesting is a safety measure on a safety measure, double locks on your door, double redundancy. Is that warranted?
I'm not wasting fuel needlessly Penko! I'm complying with a requirement to be able to hold for 20 minutes. Since my alternates are all london airports I don't see how that is wasting fuel.
If it is a local requirement as you say, then the company must calculate or at least annotate the flight plans as such. So start writing your base captain a letter. :ok:
Anyway, where does this engine failure suddenly come in from? You might as well conjure up any other failure after your CAVOK diversion, most of which can all be dealt with by your final reserve.
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 18:16
Regarding your suggested alternate contingency... again isn't that incorporated in your final reserve? (question!)
Now I know we should not land below final reserve. But what you are suggesting is a safety measure on a safety measure, double locks on your door, double redundancy. Is that warranted?
I don't know. Is Final reserve fuel contingency fuel or not?
I think using contingency fuel should not require a mayday. But using final reserve does.
It depends on how serious you consider a mayday due to fuel is.
I just find it odd that we take into account contingency fuel with regard to trip fuel which basicly covers for planning inaccuracy (wind, flightlevel, etc). But when we then calculate alternate fuel we pretend that these inaccuracies do not exist.
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 18:17
I have expressed my opinion regarding the 20 minute holding capability to management! if that is what you are asking?
FWIW there is no regulation that stipulates you must plan to add :20 fuel to flights inbound to the LON TMA. It does say if ATC says "no delay expected", you can expect to hold for up to :20. I believe howev that ATC will try and give you a delay estimate.
Look, as a humble line pilot I am slightly out of my depth discussing flight planning policy. And so are you, may I politely add. I can only imagine that planning contingency upon contingency , because that's what a diversion is, a contingency, was not deemed necessary, maybe taking into consideration that you still have 30 minutes of fuel in your tanks after the diversion. I am not treating this subject lightly, I do understand your objections don't get me wrong. But I do think some people are very randomly cavalier with the amount of fuel they lift up.
Where do you draw the line? This is just the fuel we are discussing. Some would say that two engines are not enough...some would want four wings.
Thanks for the clarification LYKA, that's just the way I have always understood it.
I'm sure you are aware, but FWIW, our Company plans diversion at LRC. As you know, our day-to-day CI is lower than that. On the Airbus, when you divert it will revert to the entered CI. Of course, you always have the option of using CI0 should you feel. So, in our company you may have more margin than you thought.
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 18:49
I'm just expressing my opinion as a line pilot Penko, trying to have a discussion. I don't claim to have the data required to determine what is neccessary regarding fuel planning. I'm just presenting my views on what I see on various plogs. What I see regarding trip fuel is very accurate, what I see regarding alternate fuel is in my opinion questionable flightlevels and routings. But we don't fly these routes normally so I really have no idea, I sometimes just wonder if it isn't a bit overoptimistic. On the other hand I have also seen some routes that seem overestimated.
With regard to 20 min holding, the AIC regarding this fuel in the london tma has been removed and reinstated several times over history. This gives me the idea that the CAA assumes that this information has been filtered into the airlines fuel policies.
The information that this AIC is based on, is still present in an ATC document, so I don't think that withdrawal of the AIC means the information that was contained therein is no longer valid.
You ask why an engine failure should or should not be considered, you yourself mentioned a flap/slat malfunction on a short runway. Possibilities are endless and can never be planned for completely. But everyday we take engine failures into account, be it takeoff alternates, overweight landings and briefings. Is it really such an abnormal thing to consider?
On top of that when I divert to an alternate with a VOR approach, I imagine I would fly a bit more conservatively then I maybe normally would as fuel is approaching final reserve.
Just my 2 cents.
Perhaps it's down to interpretation, but the AIC never did say operators should plan an extra :20 fuel - some have chosen to interpret it this way. What it did say is, in-flight plan to arrive with CMR, and if told no delay, expect. :20 round the hold.
it sounds like an internal issue. I know there was a notice bout 20 mins for LHR but it's gone. As for alt fuel:
Alternate fuel which shall:
(a) include:
(i) Fuel for a missed approach from the applicable MDA/DH at the destination aerodrome to missed approach altitude, taking into account the complete missed approach procedure; and
(ii) Fuel for climb from missed approach altitude to cruising level/altitude, taking into account the expected departure routing; and
(iii) Fuel for cruise from top of climb to top of descent, taking into account the expected routing; and
(iv) Fuel for descent from top of descent to the point where the approach is initiated, taking into account the expected arrival procedure; and
(v) Fuel for executing an approach and landing at the destination alternate aerodrome selected in accordance with EU-OPS 1.295 :ok:
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 18:58
For clarification, if the plog gives me for example EMA as an alternate my approach to extra fuel is different.
I'm not loading fuel without due consideration. If I was I don't think I would be discussing fuel policy here.
Yes, but the risk of diversion vs the risk of delay should be treated differently IMHO.
In practice for many flights, the risk of going to the alternate is low and the alternate airport merely satisfies a regulatory requirement. Every flight we operate always has a risk of diversion, but we must temper our pilot paranoia over a diversion, against running the business. You cannot eliminate all diversions. Diversions are a cost of doing business, but we cannot pile on the fuel "just in case", believing we will avoid diversions. Diversions have associated costs, yes but the fuel carriage costs can be many times higher than all the diversion costs.
My point about being a line pilot was just to put my words in the proper context. I agree with you that we do not have much experience with textbook diversions, i.e. a go around followed by an immediate diversion. However on the few diversions I've had, fuel burn was not really a factor and ATC was very very helpful after some prompting, giving direct routes to the FAF.
I do take on board your point about possible inaccuracies in the alternate fuel calculation, but as pilots we also hold a lot of the cards in our hands. Don't be afraid to assert your position as a captain. If you do not get from ATC what you want, throw out a PAN if you think their dithering might lead you below Final Reserve. Sometimes ATC are bound by certain protocols or airport managers who are slow to provide information regarding the acceptance of your diversion. Once you throw out a PAN, they will gladly co-operate and you become their number one priority. Use the system as it should be used.
737Jock
1st Jan 2013, 19:50
Sure but my opinion is that as soon as you have to throw out Pan's or Mayday's due to fuel something has gone wrong during fuel planning. Or at least should be looked at very closely.
Part of discussing this is just to expand on my own knowledge. I think it is interesting to see what other people think.
With regard to alternate fuel. The AIC that is reffered to in post 2, and most recently was called 045/2009, also states the following:
7 When the planned alternate aerodrome is in the same busy area as the destination, for instance Heathrow and Gatwick, the track miles on which the fuel requirement for flying to the alternate is calculated should be realistically assessed taking account of the extended routing which can reasonably be expected during busy periods.
Its all open to interpretation and often it can be read differently as mindsets vary.
I'm not afraid to use a Pan or a Mayday. I have never done a textbook diversion as you described either, not in real-life not in the sim. Would be interesting though for an LOE.
In the end as pilots we are ultimately responsible for the fuel planning, so I give it careful consideration. Maybe you feel its too conservative, but at least its reasoned:ok:
de facto
3rd Jan 2013, 07:16
LYKA
Every flight we operate always has a risk of diversion, but we must temper our pilot paranoia over a diversion, against running the business. You cannot eliminate all diversions. Diversions are a cost of doing business, but we cannot pile on the fuel "just in case", believing we will avoid diversions. Diversions have associated costs, yes but the fuel carriage costs can be many times higher than all the diversion costs.
Agree 100%
Well, we 'lost' the topic early on and found ourselves in an in-company 'slanging match' which is a shame, and it appears that no-one really thinks that EUOPS fuel planning regs need to be changed as far as I can make out, which must be the message from this topic. I am surprised in view of all the screaming and yelling we have seen.
Regarding 'contingency fuel' on alt fuel - yes, by all means apply it - it is sensible, but remember 5% of 1000kg is.........50kg, probably 'lost' in the 'rounding up' and other things that happen, and as PENKO says, you will have a ballpark 30 mins at the end anyway. If not, you shout.
When we analyse all the froth and bother we have seen, we see that very few a/c actually do not have 'enough' fuel at the end of a flight and most have an excess while no-one has said they have actually had their 'extra' seriously questioned. Thus, in my opinion, EUOPS works.. Anyone disagree?
If one departed with flight plan fuel and diverted to the alternate then final reserve+contingency is the required amount of fuel one should have upon touch down at the alternate. If things didn't work out as planned then it's only final reserve. So what's the problem? There's a call such as minimum fuel before one screams MAY DAY or even PAN PAN PAN.
MINIMUM FUEL
The term used to describe a situation in which an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where little or no delay can be accepted.
NOTE: This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates that an emergency situation is possible, should any undue delay occur.
No harm in advising ATC of a min fuel as a heads up. :ok:
There's a call such as minimum fuel before one screams MAY DAY or even PAN PAN PAN. - actually there isn't in the context of this thread. No harm in advising ATC of a min fuel as a heads up. - have to keep on saying this - "as long as you understand it will have practically no effect in Europe." My ATC friends tell me the most likely response is "Are you declaring an emergency?" (as in PAN/MAYDAY.) If the answer is negative, another sup of tea and get on with the other a/c and you take your turn.
Sciolistes
5th Jan 2013, 12:55
BOAC,
ICAO standard is now not to call PAN, but to use the "Minimum Fuel" phraseology as 9G stated. I'm sure Europe should be complying this this.
sorry I've used old definition. new one reads:
Effective 15 Nov 2012: ----
MINIMUM FUEL
The term used to describe a situation in which an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where the flight is committed to land at a specific aerodrome and no additional delay can be accepted. :ok:
That doesn't preclude from calling a may day, of course. :ok:
Sciolistes- thanks for that - that crept up on me. Do you have a reference please?
The last I saw was "It should be noted that Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” and I was not aware that all EUOPS countries had adopted this call (I am aware of Doc4444)?. I had noted that there is no longer any usage of PAN regarding fuel shortage in the amendment, simply MAYDAY - have all UK airlines changed their SOPs now?
The main lesson, whatever, is that pilots should NOT assume any priority on declaration of MF in Europe.
IN-FLIGHT FUEL MANAGEMENT
9.1 The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.
NOTE: The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
9.2 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel.
NOTE: This is an emergency and the aircraft shall be given priority over other traffic in the landing sequence. The aircraft will be committed to a landing, as in the event of any delay or a go-around, there may be insufficient fuel remaining for a safe landing
9.3 Standard Phraseology
9.3.1 The standard phraseology shall be used in a MINIMUM FUEL or FUEL EMERGENCY event is as follows:
Pilot transmission
(c/s) MINIMUM FUEL
Controller transmission
ROGER [NO DELAY EXPECTED or EXPECT (delay information)]
Pilot transmission
(c/s) MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL
Controller transmission
(c/s) MAYDAY FUEL ROGER
NOTE: (c/s - Aircraft callsign)
Checkboard
5th Jan 2013, 15:03
In Australia, capital city airports have expected holding delays for each time period through the week listed in the AIP, and it is a requirement to carry that traffic holding.
I.e. Flying into Sydney, with an expected arrival of 0930 local on Monday morning, you check the AIP and find a requirement for 20 minutes holding (traffic, that is - in addition to weather).
Mind you, you don't normally carry alternates in Australia.
CB - interesting. Does your CFP automatically compute this and if so how does the system cope with departure delays?
Sciolistes
6th Jan 2013, 15:30
BOAC,
I don't have a public reference, only the internal memo and updated manuals in our airline. But if you search for "ICAO Minimum Fuel" you see plenty of commentary on it.
Scio - there are plenty of 'public' references to the new ICAO procedures. As you are aware, countries and agencies are at liberty to file 'differences' to ICAO writings and I was interested in the incorporation in Europe and the UK.