Committing to an airfield.

[tubby linton]

I was wondering whether any operators have any company specific rules or caveats that need to be fulfilled before a pilot commits in a fuel sense to land at an airfield.
I cannot see anything in EU-OPS..

[JeroenC]

Its loosely defined as "reasonable certainty of landing".

[Denti]

It is not as clear cut as it used to be, but i believe CAT.OP.MPA.280 b) 2) is the relevant part. It states:

(2) If an in-flight fuel check shows that 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 shall take into account the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the destination aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome and at any other adequate aerodrome in deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert so as to perform a safe landing with not less than final reserve fuel; or
(ii) the final reserve fuel if no alternate aerodrome is required, the commander shall take appropriate action and proceed to an adequate aerodrome so as to perform a safe landing with not less than final reserve fuel.

The old regulation over here was quite sensible, but is not in force anymore, according to that you could commit to an aerodrome if it fulfilled a clear cut set of paramenters (two independent runways served by instrument approaches, vis >5km and ceiling > 2000ft).

[JeroenC]

Didn't that apply to no need for any alternate in the planning stage?

[ETOPS]

A few years ago (at a UK airline) we stopped using the term "committing" as part of a drive to better train low go-arounds/baulked landings. The new term we used was "dispensing with the alternate" and we used the criteria mentioned by Denti

The change was made to get across that you weren't actually "committed" until thrust reversers were deployed denoted by PM calling "reverse normal"....

It didn't lessen the arguments about carriage of extra fuel though :rolleyes:

[tubby linton]

It is mentioned in our OMA but there is no guidance about it. I believe the company is expecting the commander to use some airmanship in their decision making and I think that JeroenC's answer probably fits the best.

[Piltdown Man]

You are committed when you don't have enough fuel to fly anywhere else. That other place could be just around the corner or hours away. But not having enough fuel doesn't mean you you do not have options. Any fuel in the tanks can burnt, the argument should be about who does what paperwork. Once you are relieved of the decision of where to go you can now concentrate on how you are going to soend your fuel. For example, do you want to spend it holding? Or would you prefer to spend it preparing for an off airfield/tarmac arrival? There again you could spend it doing approaches. The choice is up to you. But after the trip is over, you would be wise spending a little time trying to work out whether you could have foreseen ending up in the position you found yourself.

PM

[ESQU]

We have a basic yes/no flow chart in our OM-A with landing assured at destination, EAT at destination, landing assured at alternate, EAT at alternate the main questions.