No fuel to go-around

[120.4]

A few months ago there was a really interesting thread here, started by Antigua after an ATCO MORed him for asking for a little more room on final when tight on fuel. Well, listen to this:

Whilst in the hot seat this morning I was handed traffic from a most respectable airline which was "...tight on fuel so don't tuck him up". I gave him an extra couple of miles. As I cleared him to descend on the glide he said "be advised we have no go-around capability." S**T! I advised the tower to sterilise the runway by sending the traffic ahead around.

A while later their ops. called to say thank you but not being happy I asked for the skipper to call me. A really nice bloke and we had a long chat.

When operating aircraft at the limit of their performance it is inevitable that occasionally things will go wrong and I don't have a problem with that. Everything seemed to conspire against him and after holding for 10 minutes he landed with enough fuel for about one and a half radar circuits. Had he gone around it would have been a MAYDAY and Captains choice would have been a 180 onto the other end. What I cannot understand is that when asked by TWR (as he started to catch the preceding) if he wanted to declare a fuel emergency (doesn't actually exist) he said "Not yet.".

There is no history of abuse and had we been fully aware of his circumstances his delay could easily have been, "managed".

PAN is bad enough and it gets the desired reaction, let's not go near a MAYDAY.

Don't worry, speak up early!

Point 4
:)

[411A]

Although England is an island, it is NOT an island to which flights are dispatched to with island reserve fuel.
If ANY flight overflies a diversion airfield KNOWING full well that they will be short on arrival, the Commander needs to be booted out of the respective airline, pronto.
No notice, no pension, no hearing...GONE.
Airlines do NOT pay the Commanders the big bucks for such inaction.
IF airlines condone such action, they should be BANNED from the respective country...period.

[NorthernSky]

411A,

The last line of your post is the only one worth reading.

The rest of it is rubbish.

Your attitude has no place in modern civil aviation.

ICAO, and the last round of regulation on fuel policy, has a lot to answer for. Your high-and-mighty response is ill-advised and mis-informed.

Read the rules before you post again on such a topic.

[Max Angle]

No one want to declare a mayday but the rules are quite clear. If at any time you suspect that you may land with less than final reserve (30 mins holding at max. landing wt.) then you must declare a mayday. If they only held for 10 minutes things must have been pretty tight to start with for a go-around to put them below final reserve, I suspect the clear runway was much appreciated.

[ironbutt57]

411-a...thou doest liveth in disneyland....yes ideally this is the case, but commercial pressures will be caved into by some crews, so this kind of situation wil occur over and over again until the utopia you live in actually exists...so if this how you will manage your tritanic airline....please..I beg you...hire me......but unfortunately reality is another case....:confused: :confused:

[RaTa]

Having landed at destination with 30mins fuel reserve left on the odd occasion, has made me think that on a 747 there would only be 1 or 2cm of fuel sloshing around the tanks. (info from an engineer).
Quite a sobering thought!:eek:

[John Barnes]

Perhaps 411A could have used a softer approach but at the end of the day he is absolutely right. Any commander who gets his fare paying passengers in such a dire situation ( not to talk about the rest of his crew) has no place in this business.

[spekesoftly]

If a pilot knows, or suspects, that a go-around will result in a 'Mayday' fuel state, then I can see no justification for not making an earlier 'Pan' call.

Give ATC half a chance, and they will do their very best to help avoid disaster. Leave it too late, and all they can do is hit the crash alarm.

[Oilhead]

Well how about some actiual numbers? What did this pilot actually arrive with in terms of minutes remaining? Does the respectable company have a respectable minimum planned landing fuel? Does the company have a procedure for declaring "minimum fuel" prior to go going to PAN, then full emergency status? Does the company share flight dispatch and flight following responsibility between the Captain and the Dispatcher? Did the Dispatcher know the fuel level of the inbound aircraft? He could have declared an emerency for the aircraft. Or perhaps the airline has a hard line towards the Captains ordering more fuel than the company deems necessary. Perhaps that Captain wanted more gas, but knew he would be "montiored" by the Fuel Nazis - they are alive and well at some airlines. How much support does the respectable airline really give to "Captain's Authority"?

Lots of ways to see how this could have happened. Not much point in debating this though since some total pillock in Arizona has already got it all figured out.

OH

[411A]

A very few so called "professionals" here seem to think that pressing on to destination, knowing full well that they will have absolute minimum (or even less) fuel upon arrival in the TMA need to consider...what will you say and how will you explain yourselves at the investigation hearing?
It ain't the airlines license, it's YOURS.
IF you wish to throw it away, be my guest.
I would expect that the concerned regulatory authorities will be pleased to oblige.
For a very long time airlines have been advised to have at least an additional twenty minutes holding fuel upon arrival in the London TMA...why I wonder is this so difficult for some to understand?
If certain airlines/pilots think they are exempt from this requirement, what reason, pray tell, do they offer?

PS. Ironbutt57, send a CV, you and I just might get along.

[pigboat]

Wonder what it would have taken for this guy to declare an emergency? After the last one flamed out due to fuel exhaustion on the go around? Try explaining that to the AAIB.

[AA717driver]

This guy may have been pressured by management for adding fuel that dispatch didn't deem necessary. Pilot pushing doesn't just apply to flight and duty time.

411A--I know Ironbutt. I don't think you two would get along very well...TC

[BEagle]

Whilst 411A may have expressed himself in rather a forthright manner, his reasoning is absolutely correct. No-one should arrive with such a dangerously low fuel state and suddenly state that they "don't have a go-around capability".

He's also correct about the definition of 'no delay expected' at LHR - I remember that coming in when revising for ATPL Air Law over 10 years ago....

Commercial pressures and 'Fuel Nazis' seem to be having a dangerously influence on mandatory Air Transport practice; will this only stop when someone has to fly a go-around and then finds that they're in command of rather an inefficient glider? What would happen to the crew if, following the decision of some 'Fuel Nazi' they'd called 'company' when approaching LPD for somewhere for which they did have mandatory reserves indicating their intention to divert to the legal alternate rather than to press on illegally in the hope of making their destination? Although I don't fly commercially, we operate to precisely the same mandates in our Air Transport operations and our ac commanders wouldn't think twice about changing the fuel load or even re-negotiating the itinerary if the contingency fuel available required that the en-route decision point process ('reduced contingency') was likely to be needed. If fuel states are emperilled by commercial pressures as routinely as some posting on this thread would indicate, surely internal company reporting procedures should highlight the problem to the Chief Pilot - and he/she should take up the point with 'management'?

It's not something resticted to minor airlines; a couple of weeks or so ago I heard a well-kown Big Airline pleading with London ATCC for the most efficient profile possible as, inbound from JFK, they were "a little low in fuel reserves today....."

Perhaps the problem is the advent of huggy-fluffy 'business-orientated' pilots on the flight deck rather than the hoary old salts of yesteryear - and the emergence of a somewhat compliant-spine culture in the LHS rather than the old "Kick 'em off and give me the fuel" approach of the past?

[NorthernSky]

Let's look in detail at 411A's case, and see whether we should be agreeing with him or not:

'Although England is an island, it is NOT an island to which flights are dispatched to with island reserve fuel'
- did anyone mention island reserve? No.

'If ANY flight overflies a diversion airfield KNOWING full well that they will be short on arrival, the Commander needs to be booted out of the respective airline, pronto'.
- what does 'short of fuel' mean? Does it mean landing with less than Final Reserve? Or less than minimum for diversion? Either way, the idea that problems are solved by sacking pilots is utter rubbish. I would hope that anyone in airline management these days understands this clearly. (I fear that some do not).

Current fuel planning regulation is almost designed to ensure there are aircraft flying around with perilously little fuel in the tanks in terminal areas. This is FACT. It is fact, because of commercial pressure put on regulators by operators to allow them to save money.

His rant continues:
'No notice, no pension, no hearing...GONE.
Airlines do NOT pay the Commanders the big bucks for such inaction'.
- No, they pay big bucks to pilots for following policy which may include taking minimum calculated fuel for the sector. Many airlines will quickly take action against individual pilots who carry 'too much' fuel.

Finally, we get some value from his post:
'IF airlines condone such action, they should be BANNED from the respective country...period'.
- However, the international/political considerations mean that this cannot be done without causing enormous upset. It has been done in the past, and I hope will be done again when appropriate.

Most company's fuel planning allows the aircraft to land with less than half an hour's fuel, assuming a minimum fuel operation and a diversion. In a busy TMA, will a diversion be carried out without any delay at all..?

[120.4]

I'm in a rush and so haven't yet read all the responses.

MY understanding is that as things worked out he landed within 100kgs of the final reserve you are speaking about. He mentioned several figures to me and I may not have completely understood him but something like 1900kgs, and he said it was 1200kgs for a radar circuit.

Seems awfully tight to me but he did land with just about company minimums.

Point 4
:)

[PODKNOCKER]

Can anyone quote one instance where a reputable airline has fired a Captain for consistantly taking too much extra fuel?
When my airline reduced the descent and diversion fuel, I just increased the amount of extra I put on to cover 20 mins hold at London...never diverted and never declared a fuel emergency or PAN.
Why are people so reluctant to declare a MAYDAY?
I see it in the simulator all the time...it doesn't cost anything!
Remember the South American B707 at Kennedy.

[lurkio]

Many, many years ago when Dan Air got their super new 737-300's the fuel police decided that as they were Cat III they didn't need to carry any extra fuel as they would always get in! Memos regarding fuel carried were despatched and the crews departed Sunday evening to AMS, BRU and CDG.
Monday brought fog at LGW but being company men they brought plog fuel. Upon being told there were delays of 30 mins or so all went to STN.
3 Captains went in to the terminal, bought a postcard and sent it to the fuel supremo with the wording "weather bad, wish you were here".
Allegedly.
The only people I've heard about diverting due lack of fuel has been the chap charged with implementing fuel carriage policy.

[M.Mouse]

A post earlier in this thread mentions dispatchers and flight following. I often hear US carriers giving fuel remaining when giving position reports.

Can somebody explain how that all works because in my (UK) airline the fuel decision is the Captain's alone (in consultation with his FO and FE). Dispatchers are not involved other than pasiing the figure to the refueller!

Thanks.

[thegypsy]

For once I agree with 411A!! Too many Captains are too afraid of their managers and as a consequence AIRMANSHIP goes out of the window witness low fuel states on arrival at LHR of S.I.A. and MAS to name just two that come to mind.

[ETOPS]

I have been operating into LHR/LGW for the past 4 years in command of B757/767 and latterly 777's. Regardless of company policies I have always loaded enough fuel (inbound & outbound) to safely operate the flight. If that results in "excess" fuel being carried then so be it. It's my license and technically my aeroplane so my decision - no question.

Arrived into LHR last week -Tuesday morning - Wx CAVOK with diversion plus reserve plus 30 minutes extra for expected holding. Was asked by a colleague above me in the OCK hold for a swop as he couldn't last to his EAT. We had both arrived from East coast USA and had the same info to plan with. Why did he take min fuel? Even midweek and good wx leads to at least 10 mins holding at LHR and if you have already used contingency fuel en-route then you have a problem.

Two tonnes for the wife and kids? Make that five!!!!!!

[eyeinthesky]

I must confess to not being fully 'au fait' with the intricacies of company fuel planning, but it does seem to me that this incident was a little daft.

120.4 says in his last post that they actually landed within 100 kgs of company minimums. I understand that this is what must remain in the tanks at shutdown. It seems that it is also enough to fly a radar circuit. Therefore, to declare that 'we do not have sufficient fuel for a go-around' is incorrect. They should make the approach and then if they have to go around call an emergency and get a priority approach. To tell the controllers that they HAVE to land this time round and get the runway cleared puts unnecessary pressure on all concerned. It is only upon the go around (apparently) that it becomes an emergency situation, not on the first approach. If it is an emergency (because it appears you must declare an emergency if it looks like you will land with less than minima) the first time, ot should be declared as such. What happened here was he got emergency treatment without declaring one. This is a dangerous precedent, as one day someone will be in the same situation, not declare it, and get sent around due a slow vacation or vehicle infringement or whatever. When it all goes quiet before the big bang there will be a lot of questions being asked!

Of course the way round all this is to load enough fuel in the first place! Many is the time I've had a 737 out of the near Med tell me he is short of fuel as he enters UK airspace... How is this permissible?:eek:

[apfds]

411a's robust approach has ruffled a few feathers, but he is correct.
As professionals we should all know what the law says about fuel planning and when you should declare an emergency. The safety of your passengers is your first priority and if you have a good reason for loading extra fuel then the law will support you.
Most airline managers are not stupid and most are pretty good at deciding which battles are winable,those that are not are normally the bullies and they tend to fold up when the CAA or FAA is mentioned.

[Alien Shores]

And another latching-on point here (assuming of course that someone of a journalistic bent can spot a real story when it appears right under their nose, that is) 15 minutes contingency into Heathrow on the plan? Or worse, statistical contingency? Sorry, didn't I see somewhere that Heathrow promulgate 20 minutes as "planned" holding? And didn't I see somewhere that contingency fuel is to be used for "unforseen" circumstances?

Maybe that's why I'll never get a prize on the fuel table. Reminds me of the famous Northern-based 767 manager we all used to sooo love flying with who took flight plan everywhere. Now returning to stand once at JFK is careless, but the second time..."Sir, you can shut down as many engines as you've got, but when I ask you to move you gotta be moving within 30 seconds..."

Priceless.

Alien

[IcePack]

Those who do not know the CAA fuel requirements should read them!
Yep CONDITIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT you can land at destination with just final reserve fuel remaining.
On a 757 that's around 1800 Kgs at max land weight.
& I agree a full radar circuit including a go-around can take up to 1200 kgs.
Seems to me that the chap was just doing his job according to the rules (Might not keep his job if he did'nt)
It is proberbly worth remembering that that these days of minimum seperation and max runway useage there is no longer any room for a F--=% up.
So I would guess the chap just wanted to ensure that he would NOT be tucked right up behind the one in front. I also bet his SOPAS say Mayday at min reserve which he had not yet reached.
ATC you may find the CAA fuel policy interesting reading & I am sure some other contries ones as well. One good thing about pprune it does help in passing on information and help difuse missunderstandings.
If any of you jet drivers have not done a visit to west drayton it is well worth the visit.

[druckmefunk]

I can see why our lot in commercial aviation is steadily getting worse. The way many of the contributors on this thread have condemned the Commander of the subject aircraft is amazing. I think IcePack has summed it up perfectly. It appears that this Captain probably has done nothing wrong. Due to his vast experience, he could forsee a potential problem had he been forced into an unplanned go-around (as often happens at Heathrow) due to minimum spacing from the preceeding aircraft. Without undue dramatics he made sure (as far as he could) that he would have appropriate spacing, thus removing one variable from his situation, and giving him every opportunity to make a successful approach. I would think that waiting until established in the go-round with 1800kg of rapidly reducing petrol would be a little late to tell someone he needed help. Give him a break.

"There but for the grace of god go I."

For 411a. I'm not exactly sure how you would explain to the commercial department why you diverted when your fuel remaining, whilst a bit low, still met all company SOP and legal requirements to continue. But then i am just a worker bee and no doubt have lots to learn yet.

[Wiley]

Never thought I’d see the day, but I have to agree 110% with 411 on this one. Once I’ve signed the tech log, it’s my aeroplane, my fuel in tanks, my licence – not necessarily in that order.

My company has a ‘carry only min fuel’ policy and (unlike some) I’m quite happy to abide by that, ‘coz it’s their train set – I just get to play with it. But, when I reach that magic figure of min divert fuel, (a figure I calculate AND BRIEF exactly on every approach), they have to understand that I’m out of there and on my way to the diversion field. End of story – and no commercial considerations even vaguely figure in my calculations. (As someone has already mentioned, for Heathrow, there’s a long-standing AIC which clearly states that ‘no delay’ translates to ‘not more than 20 minutes delay’, so anyone who approaches Heathrow without at least that up his sleeve has rocks in his head.)

I suspect that the original poster might have got a slightly garbled version of events – perhaps the pilot really meant that he had no go around capability without infringing his final reserve and he was landing in good WX at a destination with two separate runways, which is quite legal. However, if the pilot concerned really did put himself in the situation exactly as painted in the original post AND he hadn’t declared a full (note: ‘full’, not ‘fuel’) emergency some 25 minutes or more earlier, he might be the darling of his airline’s Commercial Department for pressing on, but he should have had a very serious ‘tea and bikkies’ with his Chief Pilot the very next morning.

The question no one has asked is begging to be asked – if the situation was exactly as described in the original post, what in the hell was the FO doing not screaming blue bloody murder to anyone who would listen?

[druckmefunk]

I cannot understand the logic of diverting from a perfectly serviceable airfield with good weather just because you have reached your minimum divert fuel. The best that can happen now is that you will arrive at the next airfield at the end of the queue with even less fuel. Surely that fuel can be better utilised holding to achieve a landing at destination rather that somewhere else.

[Rananim]

NIce post from Lurkio..made me laugh.
Would strongly echo comments from DMF re MDF..going below MDF whilst holding based on ATC predictions and rwy capabilities is always preferable to actual diversion.Its a judgement call which only experience can buy.

[Maximum]

Interesting thread.

Can't help feeling some are being a little too dogmatic however.

Wiley, what possible advantage can there be in using up your diversion fuel when JAR fuel policy would let you use your superior judgement to remain at destination, if for example expected delay was only another five minutes?

In all cases I would have thought good decision making is the key, based on present circumstances, while remaining within the regs. Dogma is for politicians, judgement is for aircraft commanders.

[NigelOnDraft]

120.4 (who started all this)...

As said, given the figures you quote (landed just above "reserve"), suggests he was well aware he "may" land below reserve. That means a PAN.

My interpretation of "reserve" (as 30mins holding) implies sufficient for a GA and tight circuit - albeit on a Mayday declared as you went around ("will now land with less than reserve"). So there should have been fuel for a GA...

So, sounds like 2 "errors" this am made the situation less than clear cut.

Unlike some, I have no beef with the low (very rarely required) figures we can work to. However, this must be associated with the required PAN / Mayday calls, and given the good nature of LHR ATC, advance warning of them happening. It is only by making these calls that:
1. ATC know exactly what the situation is, and can "sterile" / send around others etc.
2. Record how often these situations occur. If "too often", then put pressure via CAA to up the fuel minimums.

Whatever, well done for coping as you no doubt did to everyone's advantage!

NoD

[Wiley]

Maximum, my company SOPs don’t give that option unless the WX at the destination is above certain viz/cloud base requirements, there are two separate runways and there are no untoward ATC delays expected (that might get you into your final reserve).

I’m quite happy to do what you suggested in this situation, (and have done at LHR), but (and it’s never happened yet) if I don’t look like getting on the ground with all my final reserve intact, I will not hesitate to declare an emergency. Commonsense should dictate that you give ATC a ‘heads up’ at least 10 or 15 minutes beforehand to warn them of the time at which your pucker factor reaches Warp Factor ‘x’. I’ve discussed this situation with colleagues, some of whom seem remarkably unfussed at what I see as a potentially serious situation, particularly in such a busy environment as the LHR terminal area. Call me a wimp – but I hope to get to be an old one - (and ‘dogmatic’ is a criticism I’ll quite gladly suffer when it comes to fuel.) I am paid to get my aircraft and my passengers on the ground safely, (preferably at destination), not to put them at risk on (perhaps) tenuous judgement calls perhaps clouded by commercial factors.

If I may labour the point: min diversion fuel and whether you are going to accept the second runway as an alternate (if you can) should be discussed to detail before top of descent as part of the approach briefing. Both pilots should agree on those figures whilst still in the cruise, and as far as I’m concerned, after that, they’re damn near set in concrete. Whilst I agree that a small amount of latitude should be available in the situation where can see you’re next cab off the rank and both pilots are happy to press on, I hold the very strong opinion that below 5000’ in the terminal area is NOT the place to be discussing and amending your minimum diversion fuel.

[A4]

Whilst I appreciate that times are tough in our industry and that commercial considerations / saving money are important, I get the feeling that things get a little distorted occaisionally. If you land with say CMR (company min reserve = diversion + 30 mins hold) then you have run an extremely efficient operation with no waste and it's all legal.

However you have also painted yourself into a corner in the event of something unforseen - missed approach, runway blocked, tech prob with the aircraft which need 5 mins to sort out. Fuel is money but it is also TIME. If you're rushed/distracted/pressured due to low fuel and then screw up your unforseen flapless approach who is to blame? What price bad publicity?

Further, carrying extra fuel would only be wasteful if, after landing, it was drained out of the aircraft and thrown away - the fuel is there for the next sector. Ok so may be you burn 10% of any extra by carrying it, so if you land with 500 kgs over minima you've burnt 50kgs to carry it - cost approx £10 / $16. What price a diversion (or worse)? I thinks it's fair to say that £10 in the scale of things in our industry is trivial (yes I appreciate that this is a cumulative cost directly related to the number of sectors flown) but in terms of the direct operating cost of an aircraft per sector my personal opinion is that £10 is good value if it prevents a diversion/mistake.

Obviously destination and time of day require other considerations but even if landing at 0300 with a "straight in, no delay" I still carry 10 -15 mins "go around or thinking time".

Keep it safe. A4

[greybeard]

The fuel policy of any Airline is an agreement between the Company and the Authority so that even the Dickiest Headust among us actually will take the Minimum.
The Accountants have a mental poilicy/requirement to call this the Maximum, it's AIRMANSHIP that fits the extra in between.
When your alternate is in the circuit of your destination and TS are forecast and usual at your ETA, you take the minimum????
Used to be a cuppa here if you did take more, but the boss ran out of tea and acquired a more lateral approach as time went bye.
It might be their train set but it's MY licence/life/reputation which belongs to ME, not my employer.
Family
Professional Standards
Employer
If they don't like being 3rd, I'm out of here.

Good old Singapore ++ policy on all the dockets thanks.

C YA
:p

[Maximum]

Wiley, sure, I agree - you're paid to get the pax on the ground safely. And I understand and basically agree with what you're saying.

However, I was replying to your first post - that's all I had to go on - and you clearly stated ." when I reach that magic figure of min divert fuel, (a figure I calculate AND BRIEF exactly on every approach), they have to understand that I’m out of there and on my way to the diversion field. End of story – and no commercial considerations even vaguely figure in my calculations. So, hey, that's what I was replying to.

I agree that the use of the other runway as an alternate has to be considered very carefully.

But I still think it's very easy to think of the diversion as a magic way out - instead, we get there with minimum fuel, and we're faced with the same scary approach. (Talking about the two runway at destination option here.)

Whatever way you look it, the regulations and company policy can conspire to create a situation where our time in the air is limited. And it doesn't matter how much extra you take - you can still find yourself left with very little. I'm sure we've all been aware of big delays, taken what we thought was adequate and still been left with very little.

Unless you divert with fuel well above company fuel to initiate a diversion, you'll still be time limited on reaching your diversion.

Maybe we're saying the same thing, but in different ways!!

('cos I'm definitely not advocating flying 'round on fumes.)

[Dick Scraddock]

.... John Barnes, 411A.... perfect response from PC pilots, just wish I could justify a tonne over plog every time with the company.( PC means "politically correct", and a tonne over plog is eroupean destinations only "on the bus")

[Maximum]

I'm getting really sad responding to my own posting......

But another thought just popped into my head (I get about one every hour these days if I'm lucky).

It seems to me that the single runway option is easy. You get down to your briefed fuel for diversion (company minimum figure or more based on your own good airmanship), then off you go. No ifs, no buts. Just like the good old days.

The difficulty comes with the two runway option, LHR for example. Provided wx and approach aid requirements are met, you can eat into your diversion fuel (and the company will expect you to.) As soon as you do this you've burnt your bridges. Now something unexpected happens to delay things - and the puckering starts, through no fault of your own, or lack of judgement. It's just the way it works.

Only way to give yourself a buffer is to always carry enough fuel for your expected delay, plus.

Ramble...ramble....pilot's stream of consciousness.........

Dick, you hit the nail on the head - in the real world, therein lies the problem.

[West Coast]

I am always the last to agree with 411, but even in his caustic style, he is correct on this issue. To argue that its the fault of a company policies or some ICAO tenet marginilizes the PICs responsibilities.

[Idunno]

PODKNOCKER:
Can anyone quote one instance where a reputable airline has fired a Captain for consistantly taking too much extra fuel?

Yes, I could give you an example of a Captain in a 'reputable' flag carrying airline in europe who recently had to go all the way to the high court to stop his company firing him because 'he consistently carried too much fuel'. Believe it or not.

Also, I know of other airlines requiring their skippers to fill in a box on the flight plan explaining any extra fuel being asked for. At a certain SE Asian company this reason was often queried and pilots were hence intimidated into leaving themselves short. This cumulated in a bad case of 'press-on-itis' which left a 747 running on fumes after a G/A at LHR (well documented and discussed on this website).

Just wait until the stuff hits $40 a barrell again.

[Maximum]

West Coast, you sayTo argue that its the fault of a company policies or some ICAO tenet marginilizes the PICs responsibilities.

But surely the commander has to operate close to company policy, which in turn will be close to the regs?

So, if the regs stated we had to land with an hour and a half of fuel in the tanks, we wouldn't really have any worries. Unfortunately we can work to much tighter margins.

So what happens to the commander, for example, who diverts fifteen minutes before company policy or regs say he should?

All I'm saying is, the regs and company policy provide the datum around which this discussion is based, therefore we can point an accusing finger at them.

[chiglet]

Sorry Chap[ess]s
As a [not so] humble ATSA, how much fuel is burned on a G/A, and would that "impinge" on div reserve?
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Devils Advocate]

Many here will be familiar with their PLOGs telling them that their jet aircraft (typically) burns 4% of every ton of fuel onboard just to carry that fuel on a per hour basis.

Nb. A ton of JetA1 kero roughly costs about $200.

So if one was to say that you average trip was four hours long and in order to arrive with an extra ton of fuel at your destination ( that would provide about 25 minutes of extra flight in a B737 ) one would need to load on .......... click click tap tap......... 1.17 tonnes of extra fuel, i.e. 1170 Kgs over the FlightPlan figure. E.g. :

In the 1st hour you'll burn 4% of the extra 1.17 tonnes, so giving 1.125 tonnes extra.
In the 2nd hour you'll burn 4% of that, so giving 1.080 tonnes extra.
In the 3rd hour you'll burn 4% of that, so giving 1.040 tonnes extra.
In the 4th and final hour (of your averaged 4 hour flight) you'll burn 4% of that and arrive overhead the runway at your destination with 1 tonne of extra fuel (over the PLOG figure - all things being equal, so to speak).

So, to arrive with one tonne of extra fuel you've had to burn 0.17 tonnes of the stuff ( 170Kg's )

That equates to an average total cost of $35 ( or $8.75 per hour - and where a B737 typically cost $100 per MINUTE to operate ) - including discounting as 'averaged' any disparity in fuel uplift charges from the departure airports, in that you'll always have an extra tonne in the tanks.

Q). So what does it cost to divert ?

A). Lets say about $3500.

Which if you put that into perspective means that it would take about 100 normal sectors (assuming that they are 4 hours long) with no diversions ( as you're carrying that, oh so lovely, extra tonne which often proves enough to save your sorry ass ) to cover the 'direct' costs of just one diversion - to say nothing of the intangible costs.
Or that alternatively for the cost of $3500, spread over 100 flights, you will never have to divert ( a simplistic argument I know ).

Now nobody is saying "Fill the wings and put the trip fuel in the centre", but the cost of fuel tanking (or not) policies do need to be seen as part of the bigger picture and include airmanship, rather than brinksmanship !

But as is oft said, "Go figure !"

[BlueEagle]

Why is it that all the reasonable chaps on this thread who advocate the 'extra ton' because the cost is minimal never ended up as my Chief Pilot?;)


Chiglet I did a GA at Kai Tak one night in a 747-400 and it took 4.6 tons. If you are able to get in a tight circuit after the GA then you could cut that down a bit.

[120.4]

I 'm back from another day slaving over a hot radar.

It seems to me that in the world we live in where things go wrong one could never cover all the risks and operate efficiently enough to stay in business; therefore we have to be prudent.

The problem for me here is that I didn't know how things stood until too late. Frankly the extra 2 miles I gave him would have been no good if the traffic ahead had blocked the runway, it would have been a go around anyway. What I haven't yet said is that having replied "no" to the question from tower about fuel emergency the tower considered it unnecessary to send the preceding traffic around and so in the end he didn't get the "protection" that these circumstances DEMANDED. (I later wished I had insisted.)

How can "I cannot go-around" be reconsiled with "no fuel emergency"?

I would like to see the following as standard at LHR:

1. If when advised of your delay on first call you find yourself in the "ballpark" of a minimum fuel arrival I want to know about it. All you need say is "Roger, that will be close to a minimum fuel arrival".

2. If having been vectored off the stack you are in doubt about landing with minimum you declare a PAN and at that point I will take steps to ensure that you have sufficient space on the approach to switch to the other side should your landing runway become U/S. It would be something like an 8 mile gap instead of the 5 I gave here and a word to DEPS not to line too many up. Provided that nobody abuses the system I can see no problem with it. (And we would soon know if they were!)

I feel very strongly that traffic which is going to land on minimums has got to be treated differently to other traffic because we just don't know what might happen. Tower may have an emergency crossing of the runway, the surface may break up, your gear might not come down, you might get a configuration problem and need time to sort it, windshear. Why do we insist on gambling that nothing will go wrong?

May I finally repeat what I have said many times on these boards. Part of the problem here is capacity at Heathrow. We are a two runway airport handling three runway traffic and that fact is backing us into a dangerous corner.

Point 4
:)

[thermostat]

Here is something interesting.
Transport Canada (Aviation) a few years ago removed the requirement from the regs to carry "route reserve" fuel to or from Mexico and the Caribbean.
Now add to this the airline that operates a 'plane at max ZFW and can only take so much fuel so as not to exceed MTOW. Send it to Mexico with no reserve fuel, to airports that have only one runway and no parallel taxiway (that could be used in an emergency) with the closest alternate 100 miles away. To a country where comm is not always the best. A place that is earthquake prone (damaged runways).
Listen to the dispatcher tell you "it's a legal flight plan fuel load" when you ask about the lack of "reserve" fuel.
Why does the industry work against the very people (pilots) who keep it alive ?????
The Captain is NOT always in a position to take the fuel he/she would like to have and the regulators are NOT on the side of the pilot when they remove such an important requirement from the regs. U.K. regs are one thing and Canadian regs are another.
Thermostat.

[Ignition Override]

I believe that the plane which crashed years ago onto Long Island near JFK was an Avianca B-707. The First Officer never declared "emergency fuel". My company's FOM states that "minimum fuel" means arrival at destination with no more than 30 min of fuel onboard, and "emergency fuel" is 20 min or less onboard, and must be declared with ATC and demand direct vector etc to final apprioach course. Don't forget about unforecast fog from mountain lakes or ocean bays etc (Kalispell, or VPS). This trap is often missed by "company planners" when planning your fuel (well, the forecast looked good from our computer...).

My company also requires a reason when adding fuel to the original flight release dispatch fuel. Old-fashioned airmanship can't simply "rest on its laurels" over here: it means little to attorneys and bean-counters who run many US airlines. These folks are not in aviation because they enjoy airplanes, or else their backgrounds and resumes/CVs would be quite different. Our companies worship only at the Altar of the Sacred Big Buck. Even long before 9/11.

Apparently, many pilots in the past were afraid to declare "Emer. fuel" with ATC because of FAA involvement, which would mean probing into just why the flight began the approach with so little fuel. A Check Airman hinted to us once before a line check, that pilots can be so constantly distracted in older two-person jet or turboprop cockpits while non-flying pilot John Smith listens to ATIS, flips TOLD cards to landing weight, resets cabin, hydraulic pumps, makes short PA, requests three wheelchairs, listens to briefing for LOC approach to a short, wet, windy Michigan runway...[!], reads a few checklists, and later can't remember when, or if they compared flight plan fuel figures to fuel gauges on intensely-busy flight. "Was that call for us?-whoa, lets go Flaps 5. Tell him we need tower freq several miles before the final approach fix". Not to excuse serious omissions, however.

In Europe and Britain, is the 45 min. or so reserve fuel defined as being at cruise speed at FL 250, as it is here in the US? We have no figure to show us how long reserve fuel last (i.e. 5,000 lbs) during vectors at 6,000' and 190 knots etc. Our contingency fuel for a two hour enroute leg to a large hub, with some bumpy altitudes not considered by dispatch, can often be only 25 minutes or so, with no alternate or extra/tanker fuel. So much for FAR fuel categories. These "legal" figures were probably created by govt. attorneys in the 1950s, not pilots.

If OPEC even considers cutting back again on petroleum output in order to raise the price per barrel, let's suggest, as a c o a l i t i o n :) , the "donation" of about 100 brand-new fighter bombers (Tornados, Mirages, F-15s, F-18s) with external fuel tanks and lasar-guided missiles to the Israeli Air Force.

How much do you guys east of the Atlantic pay for a gallon or liter of petrol? Wish I could squeeze this into a few handy "sound-bytes" or cliches.

[Carruthers]

This guy apparantly held for ten minutes, that could easily burn his spare ton. Once again lots of key board experts, few facts.

[BrianG]

I agree with the main thrust of 411's statements and Greybeard is spot on. Airmanship (airpersonship?) would seem to dictate doing better than the statutory minimum or compliance with company SOP, however difficult the later might be.

[A4]

Carruthers:

"This guy apparantly held for ten minutes, that could easily burn his spare ton. Once again lots of key board experts, few facts"


I thought that 20 mins hold at LHR was classed as "no delay". On that basis you should (if able) pitch up with a minimum of 20 mins holding fuel over and above divert + reserve. If he only pitched up with 10 mins .....LHR ....busy ?

I agree that we don't have all the facts and perhaps the guy had just done an 11 hour sector with stronger winds than forecast......who knows. The only fact we know is that he found himself in the uneviable position of being in the sky with less gas than he would like (I think we've all been there once). He took what measures he felt neccessary to "improve" his position and he landed.

There may be some "keyboard experts" around but I find threads such as this useful and interesting - we can (should) all learn from this.

A4

[NigelOnDraft]

120.4

You were placed in an impossible situation here. From BA's SOPs / orders (was it a Nigel ac?):

<<How can "I cannot go-around" be reconsiled with "no fuel emergency"? >> Exactly. He should already have been on a Mayday if he "could not" GA.

<<If when advised of your delay on first call you find yourself in the "ballpark" of a minimum fuel arrival I want to know about it. All you need say is "Roger, that will be close to a minimum fuel arrival". >>
It did say in our orders to "consider" advising ATC when we "commit" i.e. go below the capability to make the approach, GA and divert. I still do, and the Dctr seems to understand what I mean by "Dctr, FYI, BAxxx, we are now committed to land at LHR". Sounds like A'Ship...

<<If having been vectored off the stack you are in doubt about landing with minimum you declare a PAN >>
We have strict criteria for calling PAN for fuel - and it is exactly as you say. "If ac MAY land with less than Reserve - call PAN" (and Mayday "If ac WILL ...."

Does anybody have evidence to support or deny my off the cuff feeling that 30mins holding at 1500' fuel ("Reserve") equates to a GA and TIGHT radar or visual circuit? i.e. landing with reserve has the capability to GA, but with immediate Mayday and ATC assistance.

NoD

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

411A, England is not,never has been and never will be an island.
Got that ?

[Wiley]

I know I’m oversimplifying, but for the life of me, I can’t understand the drama about second runway usage and the rest the points being debated on this thread. To me, commercial considerations come a very distant last to damn near everything else when ever diminishing fuel in tanks is on my mind.

As a line driver, Heathrow, (and most of Europe), whilst demanding in some ways is absolutely wonderful to operate into because 99.9999% of the time it has remarkably reliable weather reporting (what’s reported is what you get) and – most importantly – an ATC system (read ATCOs) you can trust implicitly to do the best job it’s possible to do if something unforeseen should occur causing my pucker factor to rocket to Warp Factor ‘n’.

As I’ve mentioned already on this thread, fuel planning for Heathrow – like any port – isn’t rocket science, and I daresay 99% of pilots would agree and have a very similar system to my own which avoids any semblance of an ‘edge of the seat’ operation, even when they are short on fuel. The magic word is ‘planning’. If you’ve planned correctly, there should not be any nail biting involved.

Before I commence descent, I calculate and write down my minimum divert fuel to all my nominated diversion fields in order of preference. If holding, I add to these figures whatever fuel I believe I’ll burn between the holding point and the threshold.

Fact 1: if still in the hold, once I go below the sum of those two figures for an individual diversion field, that field is no longer an option. So, if there’s no second runway at the destination, or the second runway isn’t suitable to nominate as an alternate because of weather or other considerations, it’s simple – I divert when I reach this fuel figure.

Fact 2: unless I reach my min diversion fuel at the very instant the aircraft crosses the threshold at my destination and then I’m forced to go around and divert to my alternate, I will arrive at the diversion field with more than final reserves – sometimes quite a lot more, even if I remain in the hold right up to my last diversion time. Particularly if I divert from the holding pattern at altitude, (say 7000’), I will not have burned the fuel I would have burned between the holding beacon and the threshold. (For my type, at Heathrow, that’s at least 1.1 tonnes – (I allow 1.3T, ‘cos I’m a wimp) – between Lamborne and R/W 27. I allow 1.5T if 09 is in use.)

I will also not have burned the quite large amount of fuel a missed approach from the minimums would have cost me. At Lamborne, I’m also quite a bit closer to most of my diversion fields, (particularly Stansted), than I would have been if diverting from the threshold. So, even holding at destination right up to the last possible moment, in most circumstances, I’ll have quite a bit of fat to play with upon reaching my alternate.

Personally, if holding, I tell ATC quite early in the piece what my last divert time will be. I amend that as required, (the frequent descents in the hold as I move closer to the head of the queue usually save a few hundred kilos of fuel, allowing me to stretch the last divert time somewhat). If I haven’t been cleared from the hold as my last divert time approaches, I’ll tell ATC I can extend my hold until time ‘n’ nominating the second runway as my alternate – and make it clear that I will have no other diversion options. This gives the ATCO the opportunity to tell me whether he’ll accept that. (On one occasion, he told me that he expected the EAT to stretch beyond that time, so that option wasn’t available to me.) If for any reason he won’t accept my nomination of the second runway, I’m out of there.

If he accepts my use of the second runway as an alternate and I’m approaching my final reserve plus what I’m going to burn to reach the threshold, I’ll give him a ‘heads up’ to say that I must commence my approach by time ‘n’. If that time arrives and he hasn’t cleared me to commence the approach, there’s no discussion – it’s a MAYDAY. (I can’t see that it’s anything less than that. In my opinion, there’s aren’t too many situations that come to mind that are more pressing in a big jet than running out of noise.)

Similarly if I get to my alternate and for one reason or another it seems I’m going to land with less than final reserves, it’s a MAYDAY.

I look forward to hearing from others with different – and quite possibly better – plans of attack.

[Final 3 Greens]

HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD

Aw gosh - I thought that Scotland and Wales were on the island of England? ;)

[Trader]

Extra fuel has no weight :p

[canberra]

in the forces its called an interview without tea and bikkies, or giving the boss a good listening to! but on a more serious note can any pilots please explain why your so reluctant to say the words pan and mayday? i was in the raf flight ops branch for 23 years and only heard one mayday, and that was a bulldog who lost his engine on departure. even when we had an f104 pilot eject in germany, he didnt use pan or mayday despite talking to us for over a minute. hed had a birdstrike if anyone interested!

[BOING]

A4 is right.

The flight plan you get from the company is their "dream-sheet" which shows you the way they would like you to run the operation for their best interests. You read it, you accept it if you think it will work otherwise you mentally stuff it in the waste bin and decide how YOU are going to plan the operation using the company plan as a guideline.

Despite your best planning and experience even what seemed to be a generous fuel load in dispatch can turn out to be tight. Bet there is not one person on this post who can state that their dispatch never makes a mistake and that their wind forcasts are always perfect.

Even allowing for wind errors etc. it is usually the last 15,000 feet of descent where fuel embarrasments occur. Everything looks great for an on-time and on-fuel arrival and then everything falls apart. There is no way of anticipating many of these events. The original fuel plan looked great, suddenly you see yourself potentially falling into a big hole. This is probably what happened to the original subject of the post so I certainly hesitate to criticise him.

Recently I went to an airfield having an air display which was supposed to end, according to dispatch, at 16.30 local. When we arrived the display was still going at a little past five o'clock. The into wind runway was not in use because of the display which caused a circular tour of the field of 120 degrees to line up with the runway in use. Because the airfield was using only one runway instead of the usual two or three traffic was backed up for miles, we did a twenty five mile straight in (after circling the field remember). Near our normal final approach fix we showed 9,400 pounds of fuel on landing, we actually landed with 7,900 pounds - THIS FUEL WAS ALL USED IN THE AIRFIELD PATTERN, within 25 miles of the field with the runway in sight on a clear visual day.

Do not criticise anyone elses operation until you have all of the facts.

[Feather #3]

Perhaps a thought from a long-hauler may be appropriate?

When one faces the prospect of a 13-14hour trip into the Northern Winter with the commercial object of maximising payload [which, to be fair, is why our employers are in business!! :D ], it helps to have a reasonable company/regulator fuel policy [the latter, of course, approving the former's policy via the Ops Manual.]

In our case, additions are made to the "normal" policy [and permitted 'deductions' barred!] to permit some guarantee for payload planning, yet leaving both a legal and safe fuel uplift available. Offload of payload is permitted to take fuel above the 'minimum' requirement, but must be done in conjunction with our company controllers. Company preference is to drop in somewhere to get gas and take the payload offered.

Naturally, between Asia and Europe, there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip! Thus, when we arrive to hold at LAM, we may not have as much gas as one would desire, but things do get "tight". What I emphasise here is that long-haulers can get caught out due to circumstances way beyond their control or foreseeable ken, and VERY close to the destination [Boing has but one example; try the Thai's closing VTBD at short notice for "VIP movement" well outside the oft Notammed periods!!:mad: ]

Enough of long-haul defence. May I thoroughly endorse Wiley's approach to the task. It's what I do and teach, but surprisingly comes as a novelty to some. I wonder if I shouldn't cut'n'paste it as I couldn't have put it better. Thanks! :D

G'day ;)

[GlueBall]

Yes, we've all experienced that edge of the seat feeling after an 8+ hour flight at a much lower altitude than the computer flight "planned" higher altitudes that just couldn't be had because of other traffic.
And then the usual lengthy, modified, vectored Camrn or Kennebunk circuits at low altitude into JFK. And mind you, the flight plan burn from TOD to landing is only 2700 Lbs! (The flight plan doesn't put you at 11000 feet 50 miles out in a hold)...It doesn't matter what Dispatch says, or what the fuel release is on the flight plan; going into large congested airports, you had better pack an extra 5000 Lbs, just to keep your seat from getting too hot. :o

[120.4]

NOD:
It was not a "Nigel" aircraft. It had originated from the far east, had been held down and then re-routed from Afghanistan across Iran.

Sorry to be so vague. I don't want to be specific because this guy was clearly caught out by extreme circumstances and I really felt for him. He landed (just about) on minimum reserve and so hasn't broken any rules, it seems. My sole purpose in starting this thread was not to embarrass the poor guy but to encourage anybody who finds themselves in this position, be it their error or not, to declare PAN early so that we can effectively manage the situation. We must guard against ever getting to MAYDAY due to fuel.

I also wish to emphasise the lack of capacity at LHR and how tight the final reserve seems to leave you guys. I find it difficult to understand that no allowance is made for a technical problem with the aircraft at an inopportune moment. I feel quite certain that if one day somebody is forced to land an aircraft with half the gear up because he didn't have the fuel to address that issue we would say the limits were wrong.

Point 4
:)

[BOING]

120.4.

When a pilot plans his fuel load he should take into account various factors that the dispatcher does not usually consider. These include the number of runways available for landing at destination and the possibility of mechanical problems. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to justify extra fuel because one MIGHT have a mechanical or because someone MIGHT block the arrival runway as you roll in on final. Companies do not like spending money on MIGHTS. (Having said that my operation is great, never questioning the captain's decision).

When we decide on our final fuel for a flight it is often what the company suggests because on this day their logic is OK. Oftentimes we see an obvious potential problem and add extra fuel (such as a taxi out for deicing). Many times we accept less fuel than we would like in a perfect world because we are aware of economic pressures and the problem we are concerned about has such low statistical probability of happening. (If you go with the last option you must always have a Plan B, and C, and D).

The third case is when people throw themselves on you mercy. Sometimes the cards turn up wrong. Thank you for understanding that this is not generally stupidity or malice. What happens is that the pilot made a decision based on his best judgement and the information available to him at the planning stage. The game simply changed en-route.

To put the mechanical failure in perspective here are some figures. Our company PLANNED minimum landing fuel is 7000 pounds. MUST land fuel (minimum to fly a very tight VFR patern) is 1400 pounds. If a gear leg fails to lower at the marker you have 5600 ponds of fuel to sort the problem out and get to the threshold. At the fuel burn rate near the ground with the gear partly down this is about 15 mins flight time in which to troubleshhot the problem and fly the aircraft to a new approach - to reach a point where you MUST land on the next approach even if the gear is still partly up.

[120.4]

Thanks Boing, that seems quite reasonable.

Given then that you start a flight accepting that inspite of good airmanship the game may change for the worse, nobody should ever feel ashamed to stick their hand up early. If people do start to abuse the system it will quickly become apparent and they will wish they hadn't.

Point 4:)

[Roobarb]

I think the rules for how much fuel you are meant to have on arrival at LHR have been well and truly done to death here before. Suffice to say that the controllers at LHR are just about the most professional I’ve come across in 20 years in the biz. If they officially ask you to have 20 minutes holding fuel on arrival, you are making their lives incrementally more stressful by flouting the rules.

As for pressure on commanders to take less, I have an extract from a recent company publication where fuel league tables are brought up and the top captains asked to pop by for a chat. They have been specifically told by the CAA that they may not do this but they’re above all that. Since the said company makes sparse reference to flying efficiently and focuses on average fleet excess departure fuel, I suspect that KRA’s and their associated annual bonus/new BMW might be the underlying motivation. After all there’s £100m in the trough apparently.

http://www.sausagenet.freeserve.co.uk/roobarb/roohorn.gif
I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!

[chiglet]

Ever so "Slightly" off topic.
Pre Sept11, I was on a [Domestic] Fam Flt ex LHR. North Deps were [heavily] slotted. A/c arrives at the hold and shut down :confused: Not enough gas from LHR to dest if held at the holding point for more than 10mins:rolleyes: No reroute just park with only the APU running.
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[P.Pilcher]

I would like to draw attention to another of BOING's comments:
"My operation is great, the company never question a Captain's decision." This is the way is SHOULD be. When I worked for a company with this attitude, they stated that the Captain is the company's representative and at the time the only person with all the facts in a position to make the best decision based on those facts. Thus, they continued, we as a company will always back a captain in his decision even if, in the light of subsequent events, a better decision could have been made. I should add that I never wished to leave that particular airline but redundancy struck as it does so often in this business.

[headwind]

120.4

If an inbound aircraft tells you they have not enough fuel for a GA, if true about the fuel amount, then the situation itself must be a violation of British Aviation law / rules / regulations / JAR bibles.

I am sure you had no reason to doubt the fuel information given to you was untrue. You were then looking at a clear cut case of a violation which, owing to your capacity and perhaps good luck of having favourable circumstances, turned out OK. As an ATCO, were you not responsible to report the incident to UK CAA Flight Safety department (or wherever you report it in CAA)? At least the way it works here, looking it the other way round, if an ATCO does not report an incident, he/she has made a grave error. From your post it was evident that you only talked to the commander.

The CAA then would have launched full investigations as to the amount of fuel left & made a judgement was it a violation or not & taken corrective & preventive action. Or are these violations so commonplace at LHR that you'd spend most of your shift faxing incident reports?

Nevertheless I am sure you did a good job, don't get me wrong. Glad you started the thread, it's been excellent.

-headwind

[Max Angle]

Headwind,

I suspect what the crew in question meant was that they could not go-around without having to declare a mayday, not quite the same thing as not being able to go-around.

I don't really want to be in either position so I (apart from late pm) put enough fuel on to be able to hold for 15-20mins and still land at LHR with alternate fuel in the tanks. That said, the JAA fuel policy works very well in my opinion, it puts the decision of what to do with the extra fuel on the aircraft right where it should be, in the flightdeck.

Wiley's comments on his method of fuel planning make perfect sense to me although I have to say I have never found it quite as complicated as that. It seems fairly simple to me, you know at what fuel figures you have to make a decision and as those various figures come close I size up the current situation with regard to traffic, weather etc. and then we make a choice about what to do.

Held this morning for about 25 minutes at BNN and it was a nice comfy feeling sitting there with a hot coffee and plenty of lovely jet-a in the tanks, no worries at all. Great.

[BOING]

Cannot resist a sales pitch here for our non-pilot viewers.

Fundamentally, the reason my company does not question the judgement of the captain or apply pressure concerning fuel usage is because our pilots are strongly unionised. The company cannot apply undue or unfair pressure on one pilot because they face the legal department of a strong union. We all know that unions are blamed for high operating costs and high paychecks but never, never, forget that the original function of unions, at least in the US, was to ensure aviation safety was not compromised by "pilot pushing". Despite the adverse publicity caused by other union activities their involvement in air safety should never be underestimated and this involvement continues today just as it has always done.

(Standby for the ever rabid 411 to start foaming at the mouth and explaining how, with his enormous logic, he never needed a union to back his decisions! (Pre-emptive strike!))

[120.4]

Headwind:

Its a fair question I guess but not one I really wanted to answer. I spoke to the skipper first to ensure that I had not misunderstood him and we agreed a course of action. MOR filed, AAIB involved. However he did land legally, with the minimum reserve.

As far as I am concerned the issue here is the transfer of information, not the law.

Point 4
:)

[ORAC]

HSLC,

if Shakespeare says it is, that's good enough for me. :D

[Earthmover]

It depends hugely on the management of the airline.

Yes, 411a is technically correct. Sure, let's just fire everyone who screws up at any time, ever, no pension, go to bed without any supper etc. Hell, why not guillotine them? Bit messy, admittedly, but gosh you'd get the message across - there wouldn't be too many pilots left in a job, of course, but by golly they'd be aces wouldn't they? God, I wish I was perfect - must be so satisfying in in that Ivory Tower .....

Listen, those of you who wish to bring religious fundamentalism to the flight deck, someone very close to me flies for a European (mainland) long haul outfit which is so draconian that some people are physically sick when the word 'simulator' appears on the roster - (I know, I've cleaned up after) - an outfit where the offence of not being fit to fly is considered a hostile act redeemable only by a satisfactory visit to the sickness police. Needless to say their fuel policy is jack-booted to say the least. Any extra fuel, any, must be justified in writing - and by God you'd better be seriously cast-iron when you appear before the fuel Ayotollah (who, incidentally, is able to bend his own rules a bit and, naturally, is deemed by all to fly like a turkey) This character has ordered the Nav Planning department to always fuel-plan for the closest alternate, regardless of weather, and then fly the Atlantic at the minimum possible Mach No ... (I know, don't ask.) The whole ethos of the place is based on dictatorship with, of course, the associated witch-hunts. Is it any wonder that with outfits like this, otherwise perfectly sane, excellent, professional airmen very occasionally find themselves staring at fuel gauges approaching the squeezed-ass point? It is this sort of Flight-Operations Management philosophy which generates incidents like this - I simply refuse to believe that there are hundreds of us out there who are cavalier about fuel ... no - but there might be quite a few who work in a horrible atmosphere.

Me? I'm bl@@dy lucky where I work - I have never had a single diversion, weather delay, or fuel load questioned by my management in 25 years. (We did have one character about 10 years ago who tried to introduce the lunacy of fuel-burn competitions and naming and shaming, but The Big Boss said 'listen buddy, we trained 'em, so we trust 'em - kindly don't bang the door as you depart') Our fuel policy says, in precis, 'be sensible with fuel' ... and I know of not one of our lot who isn't precisely that.

That's the way to run it; with respect - not with a shotgun.

[javelin]

Sometimes, you do your best and still get low on fuel. That has happened about 3 times to me, always because of performance restrictions or TOW being reached. In all cases, we have spoken to approach radar in good time, explained the situation and have always been treated very well. The last one was a long westbound flight with an enroute div planned, into 140kt headwinds ending in the desert. Weather fine, holding about 300kgs above CMR, we spoke to LA and they passed it forward, everyone knew the situation and we landed with 6 tonnes - I loaded 72 !

Communication early is the key, if you go with min fuel, and are then looking for sympathy it lays between two well known words in the dictionary ! Take it when you can, talk early when you can't :D

[Wiley]

To quote javelin:Sometimes, you do your best and still get low on fuel. Too true - and lucky's the flyer who hasn't found himself in that situation at least once in his career despite the most careful and thouough pre flight planning.

However, misfortunes enroute leaving you short at destination should have absolutely no effect on the figure you select as your last divert fuel. That figure remains the same - it's simply pyhsics. The engines stil burn the same amount of fuel.

Your bad luck enroute simply means you reach that point where push reaches shove somewhat earlier than you would have otherwise. In a worst case situation, a decision might have to be made to go straight t your alternate without attempting an approach or to drop in to an enroute diversion field for more fuel. Alowing commercial pressures to impinge on that final fuel figure is nothing short of insanity.

A very good rule of thumb that I find works really well for me is to ask myself how I would explain my decision, not to my chief pilot, but to some slick, hostile lawyer who knows nothing about flying but who's carefully read the regulations as he prepared to nail my sorry a**e to the wall a court of law.

Someone earlier said that I overcomplicated the decision process in my long earlier post. Guilty as charged - but I reached that stage of spelling everything out in detail after being repeatedly amazed at how incredibly ill-prepared some of my colleagues are in their fuel planning. How many times have any of you heard an FO say "Oh, we'll need about six and half tons for 'x'?" - or not include a divert figure in their approach briefings at all?

[120.4]

Throughout this thread I have maintained that ATC will always help but would look very poorly upon anybody who abused the system.

I ask you to imagine that a company had an aircraft that didn't have particularly good payload/range characteristics but wanted to operate it into a major airport which regularly experienced significant inbound holding. If that aircraft was not able to accept the delay how woud you feel about it being allowed to jump the queue (as a matter of right) so that it could carry a higher payload or didn't have to divert? Purely hypothetically, you understand.

Would that be an abuse of the system?

Point 4
:)

[pietenpohl]

Point 4

You ask
Would that be an abuse of the system?

Yes.

[Rage]

Aircraft with poor payload/range characteristics, jumping the queue (as a matter of right) - you must mean the new Needlenose Arrival Procedure being imposed upon us.

[dicksynormous]

If he arrived with plog poa fuel he had enuff to go around and get to his alternate, and then have final/emergency reserve.
if he arrived at poa with final reserve ie the fuel planned in tanks at minima at alt then his enroute decision making could be called into question.
the fuel allocated for final reserve is also the fuel allocated for holding and also the fuel allocated as emergency reserve depending if you are planning , flying or on your last circuit before it goes quiet.

a further delay a fter going around to your alt on plog fuel would warrant a pan up gradableto may day if you dont get yer way.
going around from minima at your alt is a may day as the emergency reserve manifestation of this fuel is considered sufficient for a visual circuit to land.

The trick is not to get yourself in that situation, with things like big picture planning etc etc.

[Max Angle]

I ask you to imagine that a company had an aircraft that didn't have particularly good payload/range characteristics but wanted to operate it into a major airport which regularly experienced significant inbound holding.
Well quite, no one in thier right mind would try that would they. Well at least not more than once a day anyway!.

[212man]

There are lots of those around: they are called helicopters!

I have obviously missed something about the original thread; does the pilot mean "not enough fuel to go around and then fly to the alternate", or "not enough fuel to go around and carry out a further approach" ?

If the latter, then how does that work?

[NW1]

Rage:
you must mean the new Needlenose Arrival Procedure being imposed upon us.
As a current "needlenose" [sic] pilot would you be able to enlighten me? I know of no new arrival procedure.

Ta

NW1

[zkdli]

we are not allowed to discuss any "alleged" new priorty procedure for our biggest customer on a public forum:D






edited for content

[Christopher James]

I thought it said don't discuss or mention it on the r/t!!!

GULP!

CJ
:o

[brockenspectre]

were the words I heard uttered by the Heathrow Director (120.4) the other morning when an aircraft, when told that the hold at BIG was 20mins, said, "I don't have fuel for that".... ATC then asked, "are you declaring an emergency" .. I then didn't hear how this situation resolved as I had to press on myself but it made me realise that despite all our pprune talk about sufficient fuel there are still airlines (and the voice was british) who seem to think that by implying a pressure on fuel they will be queue-jumped!

:cool:

[NW1]

Well, it's all above my head.

For the record, I'd rather divert to LGW than see another company's a/c divert unfairly on my behalf. Fair's fair, and I know my current type can cut the mustard on a level playing field. Slot swaps *within company* are different (if atc have the capacity to handle it) because no-one else is compromised, and its up to the company to prioritise its own assets as long as no-one else is affected.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<...were the words I heard uttered by the Heathrow Director (120.4) the other morning when an aircraft, when told that the hold at BIG was 20mins, said, "I don't have fuel for that".... ATC then asked, "are you declaring an emergency" .>>

Well it wouldn't have been on 120.4 because that's the Final Director frequency... However, it probably did occur as it's becoming very common nowadays. It certainly happened yesterday with several a/c when we suddenly went low vis for about 20 minutes! One short-haul guy said "If we go around on this approach we'll be declaring an emergency". Another, inbound from another UK airport only 40 mins away, told me in the BNN hold "Be advised that we are committed to land at Heathrow Airport". Err.. what? None of us really understood what he meant, given that Luton was half the flying time away..

If someone says "we can only hold for five more minutes" and we're in a steady EAT situation there's not much we can do about it other than maybe bring you off the hold a minute or two early and wind you round the approach, but this may not be possible.

It dawned on me yesterday that never once can I recall an American registered airline saying they were short of fuel. They just go round and round the hold until it's time for an approach and that's it.. I suppose I have to say, thinking about it, that we never get problems with continental Europe airlines - Lufthansa, KLM, SAS, Air France, Alitalia, etc, etc. Hey it's just the British airlines who can't plan their fuel properly!!!!!

[seat 0A]

HD,
Thanks for the compliment ;)

Being one of the continent, I have a question after reading this thread. I fly into LHR a lot, but I can`t for the life of me remember reading anything about an official minimum holding fuel required when operating into LHR. It is mentioned here more then once, but could someone please give me a reference? Would be interesting.
We started to use a new flightplanning system in our company this week. It basically takes all the "hidden" extra fuel away from us and provides us with the bare legal minimum. The deskdrivers call it "clean fuel policy". It uses the JAR approved method of taking a statistical amount of extra fuel, with a minimum of 5 minutes.
So you see that any reference to an official publication stating a minimum of 20 minutes holding fuel into LHR would be interesting.

Thanks

[NigelOnDraft]

LHR Dctr...

<<One short-haul guy said "If we go around on this approach we'll be declaring an emergency". Another, inbound from another UK airport only 40 mins away, told me in the BNN hold "Be advised that we are committed to land at Heathrow Airport". Err.. what? None of us really understood what he meant, given that Luton was half the flying time away.. >>
What he means is that he longer has the fuel to continue to destination (LHR), GA, and then divert.

As you say, whilst he remains in the hold, Luton, Stansted, Gatwich, S'Hampton, B'Mouth (depending on hold) maybe closer. But he is referring to the overall fuel reserves (or rather, lack of them).

Whilst it might be fine in ATC terms to say "you can divert", it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. You are in the queue at LHR, and now go into the queue for LGW - same problem, different airport!

<<If someone says "we can only hold for five more minutes" and we're in a steady EAT situation there's not much we can do about it >>
May I beg to disagree! Please tell him "OK, we'll break all the rules, pull you off early, p*ss everyone off etc." (for which we'll thank you very much), or even more importantly, say "Tough - you will NOT be coming off in the next 5 minutes". The latter is preferable to "er, we'll see", or "I'll try", or "should be OK". We can then divert with more fuel than waiting to the absolute minimum, which not only keeps our stress levels down, but also the hassle we'll give ATC at the airfield we're diverting to...

<<Hey it's just the British airlines who can't plan their fuel properly!>>
Please do NB the great pressures put on us by our Mgmt, especially into LHR as our "home base". The lack of fuel we have is partly down to the professionalism of LHR ATC! There are only 2 ways you will get us to take more fuel:
1. Whinge loudly at your Mgmt, CAA, everyone, that we have not enough. Then the rues will be changed...
2. Ensure more of us divert!

Our managers ONLY understand money - if we keep diverting, with all the ensuing costs, then they'll say "take more fuel". If the present situation, where ATC bend over backwards to get us in, continues, then the Managers will say the Fuel Policy is just fine thank you. Pilots can take more if they wish, but same thinking applies - unless they get into divert or declaring fuel emergency situations from time to time, "Mgmt Fuel" seems OK.

Please NB in BA, LH already but SH soon, we have a new fuel planning system, that basically means we take less fuel. It is more accurate, so the (little) "fat" we had before has gone...

Good debate anyway!

NoD

[120.4]

NoD

I would like to humbly agree with you and the same argument could be applied to the debate on runways. LHR have simply done too good a job over the years at getting the traffic in, no matter what the conditions are and that takes all the pressure of other people to do what they should do; Managers over fuel and Govenment over runways. That is why we now find ourselves with you under fuel pressure and us under runway pressure.

Somehow it feels like WE have failed if we lose somebody to LGW or if the landing rate drops below 40 due to wind. Many take on more than they should in order to fulfil your needs. It is very well intentioned but I believe acts contrary to the longterm common good.

Point 4

:)

[Wiley]

I have to agree with Nigel’s last comment – we, (and especially LHR ATC), are victims of our own success. I’ve read a few comments on this thread where people have said they always carry a bit of “Mike Kilo” fuel to ensure they’ll arrive with enough fuel to hold. (“Mike Kilo” fuel = a tonne or two for Mum and the Kids.)

Your company beancounters won’t – and I’m sure don’t – thank you for this company mindedness. They can’t quantify any tension or stress you might feel as you’re told to maintain the hold when the fuel quantity is slipping inexorably towards minimum divert fuel. All they see is the bottom line – that’s what they’re paid to see – and if you do the sums yourself, you can see where they’re coming from.

If long haul company ‘A’ has five flights a day into Heathrow and every pilot carries a couple of tonnes for ‘M&K’, those five aeroplanes are each going to burn (round figures – it’ll vary for type and sector distance) between 1 and 1.5 tonnes of extra fuel every day of the year. For five flights a day, that becomes upwards of 7 to 8 tonnes a day, which translates into almost 3,000 tonnes a year – just for their operation into one port. Multiply that into the number of ports Big Airlines operates to and the figures become truly staggering.

Let’s halve that figure to be conservative and call it 1,500 tonnes of wasted fuel per annum into one port. (Remember, the accountants couldn’t care a toss whether you, the operator, sat fat, dumb and happy, fat for fuel on your approach into LHR or on the edge of your seat worried witless whether you can make it in on the smell of an oily rag, so that doesn’t come into the argument.)

If we stick with the 1,500 tonnes a year figure, how many diversions can they ‘afford’ to suffer a year before carrying the extra fuel every day becomes economical? Even after they factor in landing and handling charges at the diversion field as well as the disruption to the flight schedule and p-one-ssed off pax, it’s still going to take a considerable number of diversions before they will cost the company more than that 1,500 (or more) tonnes of unnecessarily burnt fuel per annum. (The figures would probably not be all that dissimilar for a short haul operator with 20 or 30 flights a day into LHR. The cost of carrying the extra weight of fuel would be less per flight, but the number of flights would drag the final figure up to something similar to the long haul figure.)

So what’s the point of my writing this? It’s simple. Every time you, the line pilot, bend the rules or allow commercial pressures to become a factor in when you’re going to ‘pull the proverbial pin’ and go to your alternate, you’re skewing the bottom line in favour of the beancounter or ‘unrealistic fuel Nazi’ chief pilot who says you can get away with carrying minimum fuel. If diversions begin to cost more than the extra fuel carried, company policy changes. (Let me stress here that I’m not advocating some half-baked spoiling operation in saying this, because the fact is, in my company at least, the minimum fuel policy works and works well.)

I’ve said it earlier on this thread – unless the forecast dictates otherwise, (and my company is very realistic about this when the weather forecast is bad), I’m a minimum fuel man, ’coz that’s what the owners of my particular train set have asked me to be, and I can see where they’re coming from and understand that they’re there to make a buck, which keeps me in work. But they understand that I don’t bend the rules if I’m delayed for any reason at destination. In my humble opinion, any pilot who does allow himself to be coerced into making fuel decisions that he feels uncomfortable with is painting himself into a corner where at best, he’s putting his licence at risk. At worst, he could be putting his own and his trusting passengers' lives in grave danger.

If there’s anyone out there who believes his company will back him to the hilt should he be prosecuted for bending or breaking a law in being ‘company-minded’ and trying to get in illegally ‘for the company good’, I’ve got a bridge for sale. One owner, nice harbourside position…


Edited for arithmetic and *** typos!

[Stan Woolley]

Funny but I don't think many Bizjets fly around on minimum fuel when the owners are on board. ;)

[sharpshot]

Have all the airlines flying Seattle produced planes now checked their pumps? If not. how many are arriving at destination with such low fuel levels that other elements of safety are going to be called into question?

[Capt H Peacock]

For Seat 0a and any other interested non-UK operators, the document that you need to lay your hands on is from the Civil Aviation Authority Flight Operations Department known as Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) number 39/1998 and can be obtained either from the UK AIP or downloaded from the recently upgraded NATS AIS (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/login.jsp) website after registering. The gist of the text is that you are expected to be able to hold for 20 minutes without throwing your toys out of the cot, and that when you divert to LGW you don’t expect a straight line to a 5 mile final the moment you make the request.

Having spoken to cousin Nigel about this in the past it is clear that Big do not adhere to the guidance given in this AIC as a matter of policy. Their interpretation appears to be that contingency fuel is there for use as holding fuel and no extra is added. I understand from him that they still have a Captain’s ladder of who takes how much, although this is specifically censured by the Authority.

From a personal standpoint I can see little advantage in carrying less than the advised minimum fuel into major hubs, like LHR and LGW where official guidance has been provided. Many operators have a company reserve figure added into the planned fuel for example (to the best of my knowledge) Transavia add about 900kgs for any delays that might be experienced. The argument about fuel being burnt to carry extra fuel is a well hackneyed one, which although may come to a significant figure if imported from Singapore, adds up to a couple of drops on a extra tonne from MUC for instance. The fuel is still there for the next sector if you didn’t use it and if you did use it then you needed it! There are many controllers who find it difficult to understand how you can take off from Manchester and be short of fuel by the time you reach BNN! It is in short a false economy. For a company like Big, whose Ayling management policy is costing them £45,600 per hour in interest, I find this argument facile. I suggest it is the result of a parochial and introspective culture. One day one of your statistical possibilities is going to turn round and bite you on the tail.

For the Authority, Mr Heathrow Director and the other service providers I strongly suggest that the policy of gentlemen’s reminders and friendly words of advice has failed to communicate the message. This will need to be promulgated as a Class A notam, so that operators have no choice but to stand up and take notice. We cannot allow the beancounters to mandate public transport aeroplanes operating into major terminals on critically low fuel states. The time has come for the establishment to weigh in on the side of prudence and responsibility.

[Warped Factor]

Seat 0A,

Here's a direct link (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P170.PDF) to the required AIC. Don't know if it will work or not due to the fact as mentioned above you need to register for the currently painfully slow AIS site these days.

WF.

[411A]

Capt H Peacock

The requirement for the extra 20 minutes holding fuel WAS a class A notam some years ago, from 'round about 1990 or so.

'Tis my opinion that, if ANY flight is dispatched to LHR/LGW without at LEAST this amount of extra fuel, the respective company needs to have their landing slots cancelled...period.

Otherwise, it will one day be "Avianca Colombia" time, somewhere in the London suberbs...:eek:

[bluskis]

I would be interested in the replies to sharpshot's point.

If all calculations are shaved to the bone, can the Boeing drivers then use the fuel which is supposed to be covering the fuel pumps to get to the threshold if all else fails.

If so do they or their companies then use this fuel as part of their reserves?

If not, why not.

[NigelOnDraft]

Capt HP

As you said, we've been here b4! Everytime this gets going, I have to find that damn AIC and read it again... I have now dug it out, for the first time since we last conversed.

1. Just confirm you mean 36/1998 (not 39/1998 as you stated)

2. I am sorry, but I cannot see it says you need 20mins holding fuel + normal reserves.

3. The only ref to "20mins" is a clarification of what "No delay expected" means.

4. It actually states very clearly (para 6) what fuel you should plan to arrive overhead with. No mention of ANY allowance for holding (apart from the 30mins "final reserve").

5. Your <<it is clear that Big do not adhere to the guidance given in this AIC as a matter of policy>>. In fact Bigs fuel policy adheres exactly to para 6, but with the addition of "contingency". I am sure you are familiar with this - Big now has various types of contingency (5%, 15mins, 3% with ERA etc.), and something called "statistical contingency" that is so complicated that I cannot understand it... but it is still "some" extra fuel.

6. Big will normally use the contingency as "holding fuel" (say 15mins). We then have the ability to "commit" to LHR (provided Capt is happy and weather OK etc.) by binning the "diversion" element. This will invariably add another 30mins+. So provided the conditions are met to "commit", a BA aircraft will PLAN to arrive at LHR with 45mins holding fuel.

7. If the weather is outside limits for committing, then almost every Capt would be uploading extra fuel.

8. After much internal discussion, our rules were clarified to say that if the "route stats" (route and time of day) indicate that it is likely that the extra burn used historically for that route exceed contingency, then this difference should also be loaded...

Please do correct me if I have missed something in this AIC (such as page 2).

NoD

[Capt H Peacock]

The relevant AIC is indeed AIC 36/1998 and is a typo for which I apologise unreservedly. As we have been here before I also apologise for lengthy quotes from official documents, but the point has to be made.

You have made clear, and my chats over the rim of a pint glass with cousin Nigel have established, your policy is that before dispatch, with statistical information available to you to show that a particular route/aeroplane combination between city pairs historically results in an average increased burn, you will not upload that additional fuel as required to by JAR-OPS and CAA recent explicit guidance, to the extent that planned contingency fuel covers the increase. In other words you do not consider that contingency fuel is loaded to cover ‘unforeseen circumstances etc…’ but will use it for purposes that you could reasonably be expected to encounter before dispatch.

If your contingency is 5% from a suitable en-route alternate then this figure could be quite small, and assuming the flight goes well and you don’t use it, it is still unlikely to result in 20 minutes holding capability. Under the provisos of App 1 JAR–OPS PtD 1.375(b) you may use your alternate fuel for holding, that is the choice of the commander as he sees fit, although you should be aware of the caution that has been expressed by supervisors at LHR over the short term availability of the alternate runway for arrivals even in an emergency. I would imagine that you would choose carefully the conditions under which you are prepared to attempt this.

The Authority’s view of these circumstances is

CAA SRG SOC 5.1.1
… Because contingency fuel is carried for events that cannot be foreseen, its use should not be planned before departure to compensate for needs that can reasonably be identified as likely to result in an increased fuel burn.

CAA SRG SOC 5.1.1
4.3.3 AIC 36/1999 recommends that adequate reserves of fuel should be carried when intending to land in the UK at certain airfields where delays should be expected at times when the associated terminal areas will be busy. This AIC had been re-issued because it again became apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve fuel remaining. Concern remains that this message has still not been acted upon to the extent envisaged; in late September 2000 one controller dealt with three fuel shortage PAN calls in one shift.

4.3.4 Recommendation 2. Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programmes or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance of the 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 a reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).

I don’t think there is much room for debate here, to ignore the guidance given is questionable to say the very least and could well compromise the Air Operators Certificate.

Short of promulgating a Class A notam requiring operators to carry holding fuel, I am satisfied that the CAA and the NATS have done everything that can reasonably expected of them to give guidance on the extent of anticipated delays. I feel that we should all be gracious enough to pay them the professional courtesy of taking heed in our planning. Moreover you should be aware that the UK legislation is based upon JAR and CAA regulations issued under the umbrella of the UK AIP (including AIC’s). Since they issued your ATPL and not some suit in the accounts dept at Big, you should consider wisely before discounting their advice.

[Max Angle]

I seem lucky enough to work for an airline (at LHR) who never put pressure on Captains about fuel and who never question the fuel decisions of any of thier crews. When I did my command course, one of the trainers, now retired (Jenx, if you are reading this, thanks a lot) gave me the following advice. "Regardless of the what the company may want you to do, never load less fuel than you personally feel comfortable with." Any airline that creates an environment which means that skippers feel they shouldn't follow that advice is treading a dangerous path.

[foo fighting]

A little " ...we are short of fuel.. " story for you from a London tma atc'er point of view.

About 3 years ago ended up working an EGPF - EGKK ferry flight operated by a foreign holiday airline that had to divert to EGSS, lets give it the callsign Empty Tank 36F.


Said plane had arrived at Willo to be told 5 -10 mins delay which registered the reply not enough fuel, want to divert to Stansted.

When I got the aircraft there were a couple of very anxious enquiries about delays and track miles, which were duly passed. When request for very early descent was asked , I replied that would be in X miles due to traffic 1000ft below.

Imagine my surprise when the plane starts descending of its own volition , acknowledged as their own action in later paperwork, requiring extreme avoiding action against 2 other aircraft, already given as traffic and acknowledged by Empty Tank 36F.

Me all a very big quiver starts to ask ET36F if it has a problem to get the reply we need to land at the earliest opportunity. After an ILS change at EGSS, landing accomodated and "..another happy ending.", despite a couple of RYR's been given a spin at Lorel, unthinkable 3 years ago !!

Not at one stage " Pan/Mayday ".

Allegedly, a rather large volume was tossed in the way of the crew by caa, and rightly so.

Unconfirmed reports that I was party to suggest that the aircraft landed with not enough fuel to complete half a go-around

Sitting in my comfortable ATCC it's easy to say this , but if this does change the mind of any crew thinking of cutting a fuel corner, these guys sounded more scared than the other maydays I have encountered.

Put a Full tiger in your tank !

[NigelOnDraft]

Capt HP

Thank for your extensive reply.

The CAA SRG references you quote are very interesting! IMHO they completely alter the original AIC... and as you say, are not compatible with BA's fuel policy.

There is a chance I will shortly undergo a course where my responsilbilty towards such matters is somewhat more than at present. Not having a clue what CAA SRG SOC's are, or where I can find them, I can see some research coming on, and some questions being asked if such course occurs.

Between all the bickering on other threads, one's such as these increase all our knowledge levels, and particularly different areas' perceptions.

Thanks again...

NoD

[NW1]

Capt. P;

Agree with the intent of most of what you say, but the the quote from SOC 5.1.1 <<(acting in accordance of the guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) >> rather passes the buck back to the companies. In my company, CAA FOIs fly the line regularly and one of the purposes is to make sure that the ops. manuals are doing the job. If the flight manual fuel policy is in opposition to what the CAA SRG would want, then they should not approve it. As it stands, they not only approve it - but test it regularly on the line, so Captains are exhorted to stick to flt. manual policy on the grounds that it is safe and commercially sound as approved and tested by the Authority. I personally think my company's current fuel policy is sound - provided the decision making process which goes with it is intelligent.

Nigel;

Good luck with the course: when I did the same (I think our pay chits are sent from the same address) the last advice from the check Captain before signing me off was to start off by taking plenty of fuel. It was comforting to know that there was no additional fuel policy pressure in addition to the weight of a new command. And there was no pressure on this issue subsequently, save a few reminders of the (CAA approved and certified) company fuel policy.

[411A]

So, from many of the comments here, it would indeed appear that the particular problem of "minimal fuel" is mainly the mainstay of certain British operators. Why is this?
Surely, those that operate into LHR/LGW on a very regular basis certainly KNOW the problems they face...so why do they continue to carry only minimum fuel?
Seems they should have learned hard lessons by now...:rolleyes:
Or, could it possibly be...don't confuse us with the facts, our minds are made up?

[NW1]

You assume incorrectly. Perhaps it is just that we prefer to talk openly about the subject and communicate and share opinion openly.

I have flown for a large scheduled British operator for 13 years based at LHR, and flying what many consider to be a more critical type from the fuel planning point of view for the last 3, and I have never landed anywhere other than planned destination for fuel reasons and have never needed to receive special handling due to fuel endurance remaining to achieve that.

We fly safe and in accordance with the rules - and if diversions go up with time then commercial considerations may change policy. A diversion when the plan does not work out is not unsafe provided the decisions are made in a timely fashion and with due regard to good re-planning, team skills and airmanship.

We do carry fuel appropriate to the circumstances, and your arrogant assersion to the contrary is pointless and unfounded.

Your need to turn this intelligent debate into a p@ssing contest does any resemblance to professionalism no favours.

[JW411]

I am horrified to read some of the postings on this thread. In my long and so far, (touch wood) successful career I have only ever once landed with anything like "30 minutes emergency hold fuel" and that was after a diversion in a DC-10. Every other man and his dog was also diverting that morning and it was not a very comfortable feeling.

I simply cannot understand how any captain could get himself on to finals at LHR in such a parlous state without declaring an emergency. How many "suitable" airfields had he just flown over to get this point?

I am pleased to report that my present employer would have me in for serious tea and biscuits if I got on stand with less than 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks. (I might hasten to add that we are making money).

JW411: I have not flown the pond under Part 121 for some years so forgive me if the rules have changed.

Under UK CAA rules, we were only required to carry 5% contingency fuel over the part of the flight where no suitable diversions were available. This, in effect, became 5% of the burn from Shannon to Gander. On the DC-10 this came to 2,000 lbs of fuel.

Under Part 121 rules (using the same aircraft) we were required to carry 5% contingency for the entire flight. This made the flight impossible but it was got round by having two flight plans - one to Gander with full fuel requirement and one to JFK (for example) with the actual requirement. Then, as you very well know, we had a whole series of "re-clear points" like 50W, BGR, BOS etc and so it was that, if the weather was reasonable, you (having consulted the despatcher) were able to proceed and eventually only required to have 5% of the burn from BOS to JFK!

The point that I am making is that under the UK rules (and I apologise if things have changed) we only ever had to carry 2,000 lbs of contingency fuel to start with. You cannot go very far with a DC-10 on 2,000 lbs of fuel!

The whole object of flight planning is to get the fuel right as best you can in the circumstances. We all know that on a pond crossing it takes 10% of the extra fuel carried to get the remainder there but how much does it cost the company to pay for unexpected diversions and how much does it cost to p*ss off 300-odd customers? How much does it cost to have a disaster?

Mind you, this reminds me of the night when a Pan Am 747 diverted from JFK to EWR. One engine shut down on the roll-out and a second quit on his way to the stand.

A few days later I had the privilege of a check with the Feds. The man queried my fuel load into JFK and asked why we had allowed 150 nms diversion fuel from JFK to EWR. I pointed out that was what we had realistically figured was required to get us out of the JFK pattern and into the EWR pattern.

He then told me what a good idea that was for he had personally investigated the Pan Am incident and had discovered that their computer had only allowed 27 nms for the diversion and the crew/company had been accepting this situation!!!!!!

Running out of fuel is about the most stupid way to die in aviation. If you are flying for a company that puts you in bad fuel situations then for God's sake quit and tell every newspaper and TV station in the world!!

[NW1]

Running out of fuel is about the most stupid way to die in aviation. If you are flying for a company that puts you in bad fuel situations then for God's sake quit and tell every newspaper and TV station in the world!!
I thank goodness that I don't. And also that I know that I nor any pilot I have anything to do with ever will need to have either of your sentences apply. I have never landed with 30' fuel, don't know directly anyone who has (have heard of just a *very* few cases which ended safely - as the rules ensure), and the rules I fly to would mean at least a "PAN" call would have been made (ref:<<I simply cannot understand how any captain could get himself on to finals at LHR in such a parlous state without declaring an emergency>>).

I don't think you need infer the parlous state of affairs you seem to from an often over-emotive and over-stated internet chat room!

[411A]

NW1
"Assume incorrectly" you say. Well, from many of the comments here, don't think so.
Telephoned today a senior TWA Captain (retired) whom has flown 1600+ Atlantic crossings to LHR. He was senior enough to have flown almost all of his career in international operations, 707 and 747, mostly in command.
His comment was...."we never EVER left JFK/BOS without at least fifty minutes holding fuel inbound for LHR."
And this guy is British born.
Clearly, his experience with a quality North American operator, and his many operations into LHR, speak volumes about the fallacy of uplifting only minimum flight plan fuel.
Perhaps the UK CAA needs to take a VERY careful look at some British operators.
What they indeed might find may not be pleasant.

[ferris]

What happens when, just as you are starting to relax on short final, thinking "we're going to be ok, I can stop stressing about the fuel now", you get told to go-around because the guy behind you has piped up with "I don't have enough to go-around" and ATC has decided to give him a sterile runway?

I was taught; if there is no declared emergency, there is no priority.

[411A]

ferris

Up s@it creek without a paddle, comes to mind.

All of the major operators that I have flown for, INSISTED that a minimum of thirty extra minutes of holding fuel be carried, and IF the Captain wanted more...NO argument.
CLEARLY, this is the best policy.
I repeat, there can be NO excuse for low fuel for normal ops at LHR (or indeed, any other airport)...period.
Those who steam 'round on fumes are fools indeed.
Hello...Avianca:rolleyes:

[YouNeverStopLearning]

I can’t believe this.

I learnt a long time ago that lack of fuel will kill you and your PASSENGERS.

I learnt a long time ago that the company’s policies can kill you and your PASSENGERS.

I learnt a long time ago that airmanship means being cautious.

I learnt a long time ago that being in Command means having guts and the courage of your convictions to do what is right.

I learnt a long time ago that I was not the only pilot in my company to carry extra fuel so I am amongst wise and careful airmen.

I learnt a long time ago that carrying a little extra fuel is not going to get you killed or sacked.

I learnt a long time ago that things go wrong when you least expect it.

And finally, although it may already have been pointed out, the statement “ no delay “ meaning that you might have to hold for 20 minutes in a UK wide rule, not just Heathrow.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I've read this thread from start to finish and it has educated me.

Thanks,

WWW

[jtr]

Just for my clarification, is it known whether the "no go-around fuel" statement meant he was 1)flaming out if he went around, or 2)he was diverting if he went around?
Big difference #1 puts you on Page 1 worldwide, while #2 is legal, and has you doing a longer duty period.

[Ignition Override]

We can't ever assume that with the gear down on final, we won't get an "anti-skid" inop light: if you begin the flight with this item deferred per MEL, we are told to use about 70% braking during an aborted takeoff. Sometimes the runway is considered short, or wet/slippery, or maybe has an undesireable tailwind, with no naviads to a different runway available, or any combination. We went around years ago when only two green gear lights came on, instead of three.

Has anyone on this forum ever (or know someone who has) declared a fuel emergency, and was the person threatened with license suspension by the FAA or CAA etc, because of ending up with this major fuel problem?

Isn't the fear of certificate action by the company or govt authorities the root of so much anxiety in this business, regarding whether to declare this with ATC? If not, then what else is the cause of so much reluctance to make the declaration very clear, other than pride?

Let's see the truth of the matter.

[BEagle]

Nigels can attempt to justify their 'committed' approach policy as much as they like - but clearly the airmanship points made by 411A and others are the correct ones.

Whilst BigA might have the luxury of 100% serviceable aeroplanes which don't present their crews with 'gear unsafe' lights or other problems just when they thought that they were OK to make their 'committed' approaches, that's rather a roseate-hued view on life, I would venture to suggest.

Personally I think that those who advocate the so-called 'committed' approach policy as being a safe routine technique should themselves be committed - to somewhere with padded walls!!

[Stan Woolley]

NW1

'I thank goodness that I don't'

I suggest you search for 'Antigua' s posts, as a Big -400 Captain his experience suggests otherwise.

The legal/company minimum fuel is just that - the minimum. I'd leave rather than work for a company that really pressurised me to take less fuel than I as Captain felt satisfied with.

There will always be a minority who carry minimum and those who take more than I would, I'd rather pax with the latter.

[Nubboy]

Just a quickie on a thread that, as always , generates a lot of emotion.

In the bus from the staff car park the other day I mentioned to a colleague from a well known UK charter airline that we had had to hold an extra 25 minutes going into Faro the other week, due to one of his colleagues coming in to the top of the hold at FL 140 and declaring 7 minutes holding fuel. The wx was exactly as forecast, low vis in occaisional heavy rain (tempo 1500m) and the VOR approach requires 2000m. ATC gave him priority, but running the stopwatch I reckon he burnt quite a bit of his diversion fuel to get in. Total pratt and very unprofessional. "Obviously management" was the embarassed reply from my friend. Says it all, really.

[Capt H Peacock]

Golly, several items here then:

NW1 – The operations manual that is referred to in the document is the JAR-OPS manual, for which you might try Part D of many.

Your company should hold all of the relevant documents for your perusal, but you can find most of them on line:

CAA SRG SOC (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/50/SRG_FOPS_Fuel_SOC_Focus1.pdf)
NATS AIS (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/login.jsp) registration required
JAR (http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jarsec1.html) consult JAR-OPS 1 Commercial Transportation Aeroplanes

This doesn’t include AMC (acceptable means of compliance) which you will find on the full document which your company probably has on CD ROM. Flight Operations Inspectors produced the original Special Objective Check, and their response is clearly laid out in that document. Why the advice has not been implemented is something you should take up with your management.

JW 411 – Sound advice indeed. The original AIC that I made reference to earlier specifically mentions the extended routings that can apply when diverting to an alternate that lies within the same busy terminal area. I once had about 50 miles added to my departure from Washington on vectors for inbounds and weather. That’s most of your contingency gone before the seat belt sign goes off!

During bad weather in London, LGW often states that it will not accept weather diversions from LHR so declaring an emergency is just about the only way that you’ll get your runway slot at Creepy Crawley International.

On the subject of arrivals policy into LHR you should be aware that the intent is to keep the runway ‘hot’. That means in good conditions about 40 odd landings per hour. To achieve this my friend tells me that optimally he’ll have each stack about ten minutes full to provide a good supply of aeroplanes. The moment something happens to reduce that rate then the delays will back up and you could routinely be into 20 minutes holding. The most obvious reasons for reduced arrival rate could be LVP’s or strong winds, but the temporary closure of a runway for any length of time could happen at any stage. A rejected take-off will close the departure runway until an inspection is carried out (no alternate!), a slow vacater could deny you the runway for the few seconds you need to make the go-around decision.

In the last few years LHR has suffered a closure of the Tower due to a fire, a bomb scare, and a complete electrical failure. During a famous failure at Swan Lake I held for 45 minutes because no stands were available anywhere on the airport.

Other things have a bearing too. A five degree change in mean latitude of the polar front could change the Atlantic arrivals to BNN instead of OCK, and a change in average speed of 20 kts in that jet will change the inbound peak by 25 minutes. Use of the TOS tactical re-route procedure could put most of the European arrivals through BIG instead of LAM or vicky verky. Read the ‘network news’ from CFMU in the briefing room before you go.

Statistics are a tool for describing the envelope of a set of data, they cannot be used to forecast actual experience. They are a guide for wise men, after having considered all of the other variables. I don’t know where ‘statistical contingency’ has come from, but it is not an AMC to JAR-OPS and I suggest that you as Commander personally ensure that you never have less than 5 minutes holding at 1500’. This still does not provide the holding capability that you have been told to plan for in this discussion.
I would be very wary of this policy, particularly as it has been dreamed up by the same company that’s trying to steal your pension!

As for the original topic of this thread of being incapable of safely executing the go-around I will say this:


Avoid getting yourself into the situation in the first place. This has to be one of the oldest rules of aviation. Take advice, check every piece of information that you have, ask the F/O, use your judgement, obey the rules, and then no-one can criticise you for using you best efforts.
Make a timely decision to divert, and give ATC plenty of notice. They will try to help you, but you can’t expect them to sweep the board clean for you on the spur of the moment.
We’ve spoken about possibilities of the runway being denied you at short notice, if you have got yourself into the situation that you cannot go-around without declaring a MAYDAY then you should be on a PAN call from leaving the stack.
On a psychological note, a ‘quick radar circuit’ or a ‘snappy visual’ are things that you very rarely do. Your go-around on final reserve is just that. ATC will try to help you as best they can, but are you prepared for flying a safe, stabilised and controlled approach from say 5 miles or left base? You’d better have it right because you don’t have another chance.

[martinidoc]

In this world of informed choice and openess, would it not be sensible for carriers to offer fares which identify not only supplements for security, airport charges etc. but also a charge for carrying safe diversion/holding fuel.

From the calculations cited on this thread I would estimate that on an average flight about £1 supplement per punter would suffice.

This would have the advantage of allowing choice when deciding which carrier to use.

I'm off to JFK with the family with Big on Saturday, and would rather pay a few quid more to make sure I get there please.

[Feather #3]

Capt. P

A quick query, please. Did you mean in the above just 5min @ 1,500' or perhaps more?? :confused:

G'day ;)

[Capt H Peacock]

The absolute minimum contingency fuel that must be carried is in the following circumstances:

AMC-OPS 1.3 extract:
Contingency fuel, which should be the higher of (a) or (b) below:

a )ii). Not less than 3% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight replanning, trip fuel for the remainder of the flight, subject to the approval of the Authority, provided that an en-route alternate is available; or

b). An amount to fly for 5 minutes at holding speed at 1500 ft (450 m) above the destination aerodrome in Standard Conditions.

Clearly if the enroute alternate is Stansted for Heathrow then (b) applies.

Technically accurate in the letter of the law, but not the fuel load that I would choose inbound to LHR. Certainly not the 20 minutes of fuel specifically carried for the purposes of arrival holding which is being discussed in this debate. The sort of fuel an accountant would load when playing Microsoft Flight Sim 2000 on his laptop from the comfort of his plush office.

My thoughts to all in Oz.:(

[411A]

Clearly things have changed at Superior Airways from days past.
Recall when I joined SQ in the mid-seventies the ex-BA (BOAC) guys always added an extra three tons for wife and kids...and some didn't have any....:rolleyes:
And the company never said boo.
And they were never caught out either.

[Flapping@thirty]

This post has been extensively discussed and very informative, it has made me think and changed my attitude to fuel polices somewhat. A couple of points come to mind.

Saying "not enough fuel for a GA" is quite misleading if what you really mean is "if we do a GA we will be starting to use our final reserve fuel (and I will then need to declare a mayday, file a report, etc)". It seems to me that it is a good idea to keep ATC in the loop but it would be better to be more accurate in your use of language.

As I understand it you can burn your diversion fuel flying towards your destination if it fullfils a minimum criteria of vis minima, two runways available + no expected delays. As you are advised to carry an extra 20 min holding fuel to LHR I would think that could be interpreted as "always expect delays". So LHR may not qualify for using diversion fuel.

If in a good day with no adverse WX or delays you take plog fuel and this puts you in a position to have to divert to an enroute alternate (for example if you cannot get to LHR with diversion+final reserves) then why not divert? Once this happens enough times the bean counters will do their sums and add more fuel. By pushing your luck you are only confirming their assumptions that their fuel policy is the correct one.

It is their train set, why not follow their rules and divert or declare a Mayday if you have to. Only this way the system will fine tune itself.

D.

[harpy]

Why do people blame the bean counters? Any airline's fuel policy is set by pilots.

[Max Angle]

As I understand it you can burn your diversion fuel flying towards your destination if it fullfils a minimum criteria of vis minima, two runways available + no expected delays
Just to correct a point, two runways are NOT required when deciding to burn your alternate fuel once you are airbourne. Two runways are only required when PLANNING a flight without an alternate.

The requirements are:

At your destination aerodrome an EAT has been issued, or the delay is known or no significant delay is expected (<20mins)

You must be able to complete an approach in the event of any forecast weather deterioration in conjunction with a single failure of groung OR airbourne equipment that would downgrade the landing capability of the aircraft.

The commander has taken into account the traffic and operarational conditions at the destination, on the route to the alternate and at the alternate when deciding to land at the destination or divert so as to land with not less than final reserve.


As I said in a earlier post this gives the skipper a good deal of flexibility when deciding how to use the remaining fuel and he/she can use thier own judgement as to what is a good idea and what is not which I rather like.

It seems to me that most of these decisions can really only be made once you are at your destination or very close to it. The second regulation is really the only one that you can look at in advance, the other two need up to the minute information about what is going on at the time. If you are some way from your destination and you continue knowing that you are going to arrive without the ability to divert you are really backing yourself into a corner and may start to run out of options very rapidly.

[bluskis]

It appears nobody feels experienced enough or qualified enough to comment on the boeing fuel pump directive on fuel planning.

I am sure a large number of SLF would feel better if a response to this new concern was addressed by the flight deck forum.

A lack of response could be considered a distain of non commercial pilots, but more likely to be considered a lack of awareness.

I await the blast.

[411A]

bluskis

According to the latest issue of Aviation Week, sufficient fuel must be kept in tanks equipped with the affected Crane Hydro-Aire pumps to keep them submerged. This fuel cannot be used in flight nor can it be planned to be used during preflight planning.
It increases UNusuable fuel by 1000 pounds in the 737 and 757's and by 3000 to 7000 pounds for 747's. 747-400's are prohibited from using the optional horizontal tail tank, until pumps are inspected/replaced.

[Captain Airclues]

bluskis

The reason that nobody has commented on the fuel pump issue is that it has no relevance to this thread. As 411A states, the fuel required to keep the pumps covered is treated as unusable fuel. The weight of this fuel is added to the ZFW before any flight planning takes place. On some of the longer sectors this might mean leaving some payload behind. However, on some sectors such as the West Coast US to LHR we actually arrive with more fuel than usual due to the CWT minimum fuel requirements.

Airclues

[bluskis]

411A and Capt Airclues
Thanks for the info in response to my question.

[NW1]

411a: <<Clearly, his experience with a quality North American operator, and his many operations into LHR, speak volumes about the fallacy of uplifting only minimum flight plan fuel>>
How so?

Luckily, my employer recommends minimum fuel to be carried only when appropriate. All they ask is that you have a sound and intelligently thought out reason for carriage of "extra" (eg. holding) fuel - in which case it is against stated policy not to carry it. A "tonne for Mum" is unprofessional without a valid reason, just as flight plan fuel alone is inappropriate when the information indicates you will need more. I do agree, however, that contingency should not be planned on being used. Perhaps the word "commit" is unhelpful - most stacks at LHR give you a runway nearer than the LHR strips, so you are never literally committed. It just means you cannot make a low approach and go around *AND* divert to *planned* diversion airfield - but other plans do exist (if they don't, you *are* a mayday). My company, I am pleased to report, has *never* pressured me to take less fuel than I would be happy with (quite the contrary, in fact, after my final command check the checker all but instructed me to take loads of extra fuel!). Weather modelling and traffic forecasting is more exact than it used to be and allows a more accurate and intelligent approach than before. It just isn't right or clever to blindly take fuel 100% of the time for the 0.1% of the time (or whatever) when reality is far removed from prediction. You must, though, remain aware and put plan B into operation before you compromise safety. Staying safe and staying legal and using your brain is what you are paid for as a professional airman, IMO.

And will you *please* do something about your pathetic, sneering, demeaning attitude - all this "Superior Airways" stuff etc. that you ooze is just a transparent attempt to pick a fight when everyone else seems to manage an intelligent debate. The irony is that it makes *you* look aloof and supercilious.

Flanker: <<The legal/company minimum fuel is just that - the minimum. I'd leave rather than work for a company that really pressurised me to take less fuel than I as Captain felt satisfied with. >> I agree - and so would I. Fortunately, my company doesn't, so I don't have to.

Capt. P: I am very familiar with all the documents you mention. I have copies of most of them at home. The SOC you mention makes several general recommendations - all of which are pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy (some parts are practically quotes). Read especially the paragraphs which differentiate the days when holding is likely and those when it is not: cf. paras 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. Note also para. 4.3.5 (which is relevant to the thust of this thread) which finishes "If deciding not to divert, the commander can use Alternate Fuel together with any unused portion of Contingency Fuel to extend the length of time he may be required to hold before commencing his approach at his planned destination.".

But it is not done thoughtlessly, and some comments here have given at least one contributor the impression that some operators are imposing draconian dictats which are resulting in dangerously low levels of fuel. This is just not the case in my experience, and certainly not with my company. Lets keep it calm, reasoned and real shall we, people?

[M.Mouse]

Very well said NW1.

[Wings]

I know a few of you have read the late Arthur Whitlock's autobiography "Behind the Cockpit Door". In the book is a cartoon which has the caption

"The safest pilot, is one who has in the past experienced considerable fear and will go to almost any lengths to avoid experiencing it again !"

Now stop and ask yourself 3 questions,

1. "How far do you think that Captain had sucked his seat cushion up his rectal orifice during that situation ?"

2. "Do you really think he will ever let that situation happen again ?"

3. "When he gets another memo from his company urging carrying minimum fuel loads or the like, what do you think he is going to do with it ?

Frankly, I think the man is a safer pilot because of it.

There are two types of pilots out there;
those who have experienced the situation,
and those who are going to.

Which one are you ?

[Capt H Peacock]

The CAA Safety Regulation Group has but one function, and that is to improve flight safety. I think most people have no difficulty in deducing the thrust of this Special Objective Check. The Authority is trying to create an environment where aircraft using one of the busiest international airports in the World, do not arrive in a position where the routinely experienced levels of traffic result in critically low fuel states over the city of London.

Given that very simple and sensible message, I cannot understand why anyone would want to refute or subvert the intentions of the SRG. If their aim is simply to avoid the carriage cost of ‘unnecessary fuel’ I would be extremely disappointed in the value judgements of the individuals involved. As I mentioned earlier, the penalties involved are relatively small unless we’re talking ultra long haul, and for short haul is such a ridiculously small cost as to be negligible. The whole thing is an accounting exercise and I would suggest that an operator that has to result to such penny pinching has far greater things to worry about.

If it’s quotes from the document you’re after than how about these:

This AIC had been re-issued because it again became apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve Fuel remaining. . . .

Because Contingency Fuel is carried for events that cannot be foreseen, its use should not be planned before departure to compensate for needs that can reasonably be identified as likely to result in an increased fuel burn. . . .

Some operators were reported to have in place ‘league tables’ that ‘ranked’ commanders according to the amount of fuel they took on departure exceeding that calculated by the computer program. . . The effect of keeping a league table as described exerts a form of pressure on each Individual . . .Such perceived pressure is known to have resulted in pilots departing with less than that calculated by the computer-generated fuel plan so that their position in the table could be ‘improved’. . . .

To depart on a public transport flight with less than the flight plan fuel calculated in accordance with a program accepted by the Regulator as sound - and without good reason - is likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions under which the Air Operator Certificate was granted. . . .


Are these points pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy . ., and if so why?

I feel this message is clear enough for all but the most obstinate of operators, it’s recommendations should be acted upon by all commanders who use Heathrow. It seems that the many non-UK operators have no problem with this. For those that won’t as a matter of policy, I personally believe that this should be a Class A Notam.

This is the Safety Regulation Group issuing an instruction on SAFETY. Isn’t that at the top of everyone’s list?

[Albatros6]

well, not followed every item, but one and a half Radar pattern comes up to about 30' fuel. Remember it's calculated in the holding, and you'll wonder how much you need for a G/A and another 20 NM final (yes, pretty close to a ton, specially with flaps extended expecting a quickie...) and this with a final reserve of a few hundred kilos more than a ton. Not to mention if you need Anti-Ice...
Okay, what we can do legally (according JAR) will lead aviation sonner or later into a situation where a lot of planes are over a closed Destination first, with unconfortable fuel states, and then the same planes queing with even less fuel over the alternate.
I hope not to be part then on the scenery, but who knows.
In adverse wx-conditions i even take fuel in excess of the max landing weight to cover delays...as mentioned before, EGLL is a good example.

(By the way, the ATC in London deserves my respect for managing that lot of traffic, however, if the smallest thing happens (e.g. one holding area u/s due to TS), delay is unavoidable...but's not your fault. Thank you guys)

[NW1]

If it’s quotes from the document you’re after than how about these:Er, no, it was you who were quoting (selectively) from the various documents. I merely pointed out by quoting from the same document that my employer's guidance in the form of ops manuals reflected almost exactly the advice given in the SOC you quoted when looked at in its entirety. It may be dissapointing to you, but we conform with the advice in the SOC and the line flying by the CAA FOIs confirm this compliance.

Are these points pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy . ., and if so why? . I don't understand your implied problem. My employer's fuel policy closely follows the recommendations of both JAR OPS and the recent SOC you quote, and avoids the problems represented by the selctive quotes you post. Why do you you ask "why"? We conform, we are not pressured to carry minimum fuel. And we don't when not appropriate. What, exactly, is your problem? CAA FOIs fly our line regularly to ensure complicance, and quite rightly too.

The Authority is trying to create an environment where aircraft using one of the busiest international airports in the World, do not arrive in a position where the routinely experienced levels of traffic result in critically low fuel states over the city of London. They are, and we don't. Sorry old chap, but you may pop the toys back in your pram.

Given that very simple and sensible message, I cannot understand why anyone would want to refute or subvert the intentions of the SRG. If their aim is simply to avoid the carriage cost of ‘unnecessary fuel’ I would be extremely disappointed in the value judgements of the individuals involved.
I cannot speak for any other operator, but I can say that your concern is misplaced in the case of my own operation. My own ops. manuals and fleet specific manuals and airline policy reflect exactly the advice and express the concerns of the ANO, JAR documents and indeed the SOC you quote. No individual I have ever had contact with in the course of my employment is worthy of the dissapointment you propose. We are advised and exhorted to follow the advice of the SRG and we do. OK?

Perhaps you'd better stick to reading the "Sun", because your shock and horror will not be vindicated here

[Capt H Peacock]

Just spare me the insults and answer these questions:

*Does your company, advise as a result of this guidance, to routinely add holding fuel to your fuel load when inbound to the airfields concerned?
*Is your company’s policy predicated on the of use contingency fuel as part of the expected burn?
*Does your company hold commanders ‘league tables’?

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

Well - 3/3 to Cpt P, I'm afraid.

NW1 - I see you fly the 'pointy thing' ('PT'). I think you are a bit 'out of the loop', then are you not? When did you last hold? COULD you hold? Certainly in the days when Big A WAS the world's favourite you could not! Perhaps now you can? As soon as PT arrives on the scene, ATC implement 'PT ALERT' ATC plan and everyone else shuffles around and gets a couple more mins in the hold. How my heart sinks when I hear that callsign when I'm coming in! Not a problem in France, of course, where AF have priority over all traffic anyway.

Sorry to disappoint all the Nigels, but
1) "Does your company...." Answer: NO. The CAA asked that IF you EXPECT 20 mins hold (ie LHR and sometimes LGW), this fuel SHOULD be carried IN ADDITION to FP fuel AND shown as 'en-route fuel', not 'EXTRA'. Show me that, NW1, in your 'bible'?

2) "Is your company's...." Answer: Big actively encourage the use of contingency fuel to absorb delays before take-off. Its in your 'bible'. Legal, but......? Not for me!

3) "Does your company...." Answer YES (see Roobarb's post) and/or talk to the CAA - but you know that anyway, don't you? Don't give me that BS about the CAA flying with you and therefore.... It is well known that the CAA allows BA to 'self-regulate' and is frightened to say NO! to them. It was ONLY because the CAA finally threw their toys out of the cot that Big changed their fuel policy recently.

If the incident that started this thread was a genuine case of 'caught-out' then fine, but why not divert when the fuel shortage came to light?

Walt (carries extra fuel as needed, diverts when necessary...... and still employed)

[Captain Airclues]

Quote from 120.4 at the top of page 5;

"It was not a "Nigel" aircraft. It had originated from the far east, had been held down and then re-routed from Afghanistan across Iran."

Why is it necessary for an intesting and informative thread to degenerate into BA-bashing? We are all professionals, and we all use our experience and judgement to ensure that we arrive with adequate fuel for the circumstances. Just occasionally even the most careful and conscientious pilot gets caght out.
Just because the ops manual says that you can legally take a certain minimum does not mean that you have to do so. I have always loaded whatever fuel either I or the co-pilot felt necessary (the greater of the two amounts). I have never had the slightest comment from management, even though I carried 25,000kgs extra on one occasion.
This thread is a repeat of the one started by Antigua some time ago. Having read both threads I have come to the conclusion that we all actually agree with each other.

Airclues

[Antigua]

:cool: I've tried to stay out of this thread, 'cos I said all I had to say on the previous thread that I started, and to which '120.4' kindly referred.

That was on the ATC Forum, There are too many 'wannabees' and general anal orifices on this one to have a sensible discussion.

However. Much to my co-pilot's amazement and delight, I took OODLES of XS into YYZ last time I went. (TS over that big pond thing they have there).

Sure enough, 500miles out, YYZ became 'closed'. We held somewhere up near the Arctic Circle for AGES, and subsequently got in OK.

The previous flight that day, ( two-holer), diverted, as did the next days!

The purpose of this post is not to blow my own trumpet. (It's too rusty). It is to illustrate that guys who wind up occasionally a bit short of gas at LHR, or anywhere else, are not necessarily either cowboys or company stooges. On occasions, we DO forsee trouble.

I've just got back from SIN. That took 14hrs 48mins. Longer than expected! Too long to forsee EVERYTHING.

All I'm saying is PLEASE cut the pilots and the controllers a little slack. ACCEPT there will be occaisions when a subtle hint over the airwaves will be of tremendous short term help to everyone concerned.

And stuff the Air Pilot and JAR where the sun don't shine.

ANTIGUA

[Bellerophon]

fly_lt_w_mitty

On the remote chance that you might bother to read something that disagrees with your entrenched views - and possibly even learn from it - try the following:

NW1 - I see you fly the 'pointy thing' ('PT'). I think you are a bit 'out of the loop', then are you not?

Why do you think a Concorde pilot must be "a bit out of the loop"? Please enlighten us with your reasoning.

When did you last hold?

Speaking as another "bit out of the loop pilot", very recently.

COULD you hold?

Yes.

Certainly in the days when Big A WAS the world's favourite you could not!

Not true. If you wish to base your postings on rumour and gossip, present them as such, don’t try to pass them off as fact.

Perhaps now you can?

Yes, just as before.

As soon as PT arrives on the scene, ATC implement 'PT ALERT' ATC plan and everyone else shuffles around and gets a couple more mins in the hold.

Please post a copy of this ‘PT ALERT’ plan, so that those of us who might benefit from it can see it. I’ve never heard of it.

Big actively encourage the use of contingency fuel to absorb delays before take-off. Its in your 'bible'. Legal, but......? Not for me!

If the delays before take-off are unexpected, and were not known about prior to taxy, then of course I will use my contingency fuel - that is what it is there for.

If delays before take-off are expected, we will either load more taxy fuel, or try to co-ordinate our start up with ATC to minimise delay at the hold.

Your other points have already been answered, and I see no point in repeating what others have already said.


Captain H Peacock

Well, I must give you credit for getting me to look at what the SRG has actually published, as opposed to a company translation, which can’t be a bad thing!

I think I see the point you are making, but as I haven’t read the documents you refer to in their entirety, nor compared what they require with our written fuel policy, I can’t comment until I have.

What I can say is that personally I have never been put under any pressure about the amount of fuel I carry, nor been asked afterward to justify a fuel load. Neither have I seen any league tables, or my position in them, although I gather others may have.


120.4

As I don’t know the full details of the incident you quote at the start of this thread, I won’t comment on the actions of the crew. Our initial assumption should be that they acted properly, unless and until it is proved otherwise.

However the situation you found yourself in is obviously highly undesirable, and I would hope that normally you would receive much earlier warning from an aircraft that was getting low on fuel.

Under our company procedures, you should receive a "PAN" call as soon as it is apparent that the aircraft may land with less than Reserve fuel (roughly 30 minutes flying) and a "MAYDAY" call as soon as it is evident that the aircraft will land with less than Reserve fuel. Both calls should be accompanied by an estimate of the flying time remaining in minutes.

This should mean that any aircraft on approach, that has not made either call, has sufficient fuel remaining safely to accomplish a Go-Around, circuit and landing.

In addition to the above compulsory radio calls, if getting down towards a fuel limit, I try to tell your colleague on Approach, a good few minutes ahead of decision time, how much longer I can hang around for, and what my options or intentions will be thereafter.

A significant part of the "Good Airmanship" we all aspire to is good communications with ATC.

Regards

Bellerophon

[NW1]

Capn P: I did not intend to offend - if I did then I unreservedly apologise (it was late and I was tired - and a little sore from all the BA bashing here and emotive exaggerations by some parties). I am very familiar with the SOC you mention, and my opinion is that there is no discrepancy between its implications and my employer's fuel policy. And I am happy that I have, and always have had, the authority and latitude to exercise good airmanship, judgement and calculate required fuel according to circumstances and have always tried to do so.

Yes, there are league tables somewhere - I *think* only for shorthaul fleets but am not sure. I think they are a dreadful abberation, and only tolerated by the authority because they are "de-personalised" with only "pin codes" instead of names so that only the individuals concerned can identify themselves. When I first got my command on shorthaul, I was told my pin number by the then chief pilot and I gently told him that I would not need it as I would base my fuel decisions on the conditions of the flight and not on the practices of others. He is a good bloke and understood my feelings on that (it is easier to have calm and reasoned discussions on the subject face to face than here on the PC's screen!!).

Mitty: Oh dear, very Victor Meldrew. The Concorde operation is at least as "in the loop" as any other, I just cannot for the life of me think why you presume otherwise. When did I last hold? Last time I flew - about 15-20 minutes. Just like everyone else so your heart needn´t sink. Not uncommon on the inbound service. We even had fuel for yet another 25 minutes because the forecasts were going for wind and rain and so we loaded up, didn't even touch the LGW full diversion fuel. I have never been on a flight where we've "pushed in" - slot swaps with own company a/c maybe a couple of times. And I wouldn't want to, either. Your comment about us not being able to hold at some time in the past is incorrect - the BGI operation is closer to the aircraft's operating range limit, but no more so than a 744 arrival from some far eastern stations. Your para. 3 is beneath contempt and certainly beneath worthy of a reply. "Walt (carries extra fuel as needed, diverts when necessary...... and still employed)", me too - and in accordance with the guidance offered on my company manuals (which is in turn IAW the CAA's SOC mentioned by Capt. P).

[120.4]

Antigua:

Quite right. The application of common sense in these matters will usually see everybody home safe and well when something unforseen has happened. I too am sorry that this has degenerated a little. All I a wanted to do was encourage people to speak up early so that we don't ever get to MAYDAY and, as I have said, as long as nobody abuses that privilege ATC will be quite happy to oblige.

I seem to remember you were going to speak to SRG about relevant issues. Any joy?

Bellerophon:

"PT alert". Mmmmm. I am not supposed to comment on any alleged ATC procedures (commercially sensitive and all that) but suffice it to say that it is unlikely that Concorde will have to divert out of the hold due fuel. Make of that what you will. There is another thread running somewhere which is more explicit.

Point 4
:)

[Tevoro]

A couple of days ago an Air Malta flight declared a pan, because of low fuel, at LBA. LBA was its destination and diversion airfields were readily availible. It has the feeling of a queue jumping exercise as the weather had just improved from Cat 3. Does anyone know more? If it was just to ensure arrival at destination is there likely to be any investigation into the incident. Is it considered correct to declare a pan just to avoid a diversion?