Reduced contingency fuel procedure

[Wilton Shagpile]

Here is a quick question if anyone can help.

When operating in Europe using the RCPF procedure, say, for example you're heading up from somewhere warm and your normal destination is Birmingham and destination2 (for RCFP purposes) is Gatwick.

If you require an alternate for your flight to Birmingham, do you also require an alternate for Gatwick? In other words, can you treat destination 2 as a diversion (to land with no less than final reserve fuel etc.) or do you need to treat it as a destination and carry alternate fuel?

Any reference to a document would be helpful....

[de facto]

No,Gatwick is your Alternate (fuel).
Search easa ops RCF, you will get the info and learn about RCF.
Long story short,you need to find out how to calculate your contigency fuel point,then if required,you can select a more suitable contigency alternate,an airport that would be within a certain radius of that point.(25 %of your flight plan route distance or 20% plus 50 NM).
Normally for flights above 2 hours,the latter is used.

[Wilton Shagpile]

Great, many thanks.

[SR-22]

Actually if you would use LGW as destination 2 you would need an alternate for LGW also yes, unless you use the no alternate planning, e.g. flying time to dest 2 less than 6 hours, 2 separate runways and good weather etc according to EASA

[de facto]

since when do you need an alternate for your alternate?
As long as gatwick is in range to be designated RCF airport,why not,?
Please explain,i must be missing something.
Thanks

[SR-22]

de facto to me it appears to me that you might be confusing the RCF procedure with the ERA , e.g. reducing the total contingency fuel to 3% by choosing an airport within the radius you correctly mention.

I believe the OP is referring to the RCF procedure (formerly called re-clearance) where there were some changes made to it. In theory making 2 flight plans. One to Dest1 with a 5% contingency fuel from the DP to Dest2 plus alternate if needed and final reserve. Then another normal flight plan to Dest2 plus contingency fuel and alternate fuel if required and final reserve.

[de facto]

The RCF used in europe is just that Reduced...from the basic 5% to 3 % or 5 mins.
PDP and isolated aerodrome are not used within Europe,at least not in my airline.

To be honest,i have read the OP hundreds of times and yet not really sure..maybe i should seat down with a coffee,draw it and then maybe i will see what he meant :p

[Don Coyote]

De Facto, In the example above LGW is not your alternate it is in fact your destination 2 hence it needing an alternate unless less than 6 hours etc.

EASA OPS AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.150(b) (b) details the procedure and, as mentioned by SR-22 it is different from the Fuel En-Route Alternate procedure which can be found at AMC2 CAT.OP.MPA.150(b)

[repulo]

Hello everyone,
I am digging this thread out since I have a question to the RCP. EASA states in CAT.OP.MPA.150 under point iv "alternate fuel, if a destination 2 alternate is required."
Now when exactly is a destination 2 alternate required? For destination 1 the law clearly states the six hours..exemption, but not for des. 2.
So when exactly is a destination 2alternate required? Can't find no reference in the AMS's or GM.

Anybody in the know who could help?

[roadrabbit]

You do NOT need an alternate to an alternate, and simple logic will show you why.

If you divert from your destination to your planned alternate you are diverting! You may now refer to your alternate as your new destination, but it is still in reality your alternate.

If you now needed an alternate to this 'new destination', where would the required fuel come from? If you luck was out, and your alternate became unusable, are you suggesting you can now divert to this new alternate? And does it now require yet another alternate? And where would all that fuel required come from ....... and so on to absurdity.

Of course not - the reasoning is false, but even ATC can get it wrong:

I once held at Geneva for the weather to improve. It didn't, so I asked ATC for a clearance to Basle, my alternate. He asked me for my new alternate. I told him I didn't have one, but he insisted. I was holding at the VOR "St Prex" and could see the ground beneath me. There was a large flat green grass field below me, so I told him the grass field at my present position would be my new alternate - he accepted it!

[FlightDetent]

AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.150(b) Fuel policy: PLANNING CRITERIA — AEROPLANES

(a) Basic procedure
to include Contingency Fuel as either of
- trip fuel 5% or
- trip fuel 3% when ERA is used
- 20 mins of trip burn based on monitoring programme for the individual A/C
- statistical extra burn based on approved individual A/C and city-pair data
but never less than 5 minutes holding at 1500' ft above DEST in ISA conditions.

(b) Reduced contingency fuel (RCF) procedure
--> what the OP inqures about

(c) Predetermined point (PDP) procedure
(d) Isolated aerodrome procedure

AMC2 CAT.OP.MPA.150(b) Fuel policy: "LOCATION OF THE FUEL EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE (FUEL ERA) AERODROME"
--> not pertinent to this discussion

Thus:

* The 3% ERA is a version of the BASIC procedure, not RCF.
* The RCF procedure clearly spells DEST1 and DEST2 - to be treated indentically with respect to ALTN requirements.
* The PDP uses DEST and its ALTN, of which only one is reachable.

Wording is mine, not verbatim.

[RAT 5]

You do NOT need an alternate to an alternate, and simple logic will show you why.
If you divert from your destination to your planned alternate you are diverting! You may now refer to your alternate as your new destination, but it is still in reality your alternate.

Diverting from destination to an alternate allows you to land with 30mins fuel at alternate. The sequence & route flown is approach to destination then divert to alternate. You would have arrived at destination with reserve fuel or more.
If the alternate is located before the planned destination, and for arrival fuel reasons you fly direct to that airfield, i.e. land short, then you have not diverted but changed the airfield to which you will make your first approach. You should arrive there with reserve fuel to a newly nominated alternate. i.e. when you make your first approach to land there would normally be an escape route called an alternate.
If you are suggesting that you could fly to your original alternate, without another alternate because it is your alternate, then by inference you could land with 30mins rule. Would you? I hope not.
If you arrive overhead your original destination and decide to continue direct to alternate that is a different scenario. You would have arrived over destination with planned reserves. Totally different.