Fuel reserves inbound to the UK (again)

[overstress]

Before I posted this I searched Tech Log on the subject and decided it was worth raising this again.

The other day a colleague brought to my attention AIC 9/2003 (Pink51) dated 9 January. It replaces Pink 170 of previous discussions.

You may view it on-line at :

fuel AIC (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P051.PDF)

Firstly, is it the same wording as the old Pink 170?

Secondly, could anyone tell me how to interpret this?

Does it mean:

Arrive at e.g. LAM for LHR with extra fuel carried to hold for 20 mins prior to commencing the approach in addition to the

1 Fuel for the approach
2 Missed approach
3 Fly to alternate, approach & land
4 Hold at alt for 30mins

The S/H fleet I am on has15 mins contingency in the plog but almost nobody seems to carry any extra into LHR.

A colleague recently flew with a CAA inspector on J/S who seemed to imply that extra 20mins should ALWAYS be carried into the UK over the 'bare' plog.

[411A]

Would imagine yes, another 20 minutes in addition to....
Has been the same for oh so many years for the long haul guys, any reason short haul should be different?:rolleyes:

[tired]

Overstress, it is exactly as you say. They are strongly suggesting that besides the legal minimum fuel you have to carry by law (ie the conditions you mention in your post) you should arrive in the London TMA with enough extra fuel to hold for at least 20 minutes before beginning the approach. Not a legal requirement, just an understated British way of saying it might be a Good Idea.

Also take note of that little paragraph which says that "no delay expected" might not mean what it says. Even if you are advised "no delay" you might still go around the hold for up to 20 minutes before beginning the approach. Thus the CAA rewrites the English language. :(

As far as I can remember, the wording is the same as the previous AIC - these things just have to be reissued from time to time to remain current.

Hope that helps.

[LYKA]

Just a few more thoughts.

If your flight is less than 6 hours then under JAROPS you don't need an alternate. therefore as most plogs show an alternate plus the 15 mins you have the 20 mins+. (landing assured?) :yuk:

[411A]

Hmmm, if under 6 hours, no alternate required? IF true, suspect many operators would have a re-think about dispatching accordingly....doesn't sound so bright to me.:eek:

[NW1]

Actually, the 6-hour thing is a little more involved:

JAR-OPS 1.295:
(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:

(1) Both:

(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing does not exceed 6 hours;

and

(ii) Two separate runways are available and useable at the destination and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at destination, the ceiling will be at least
2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km. (see IEM OPS 1.295(c)(1)(ii));

or (2) The destination is isolated and no adequate destination alternate exists.

So its not just a case of destination being less than 6 hours away..... hopefully the full context of the JAR-OPS paragraph will help clarify the proper intent.

[Max Angle]

This topic seems to crop up all the time here, the AIC is quite clear in it's intent and it's been around for ages. The message should be clear to all us by now. Don't pitch up in a busy TMA with minimum fuel reserves, simple as that.

20-30 miniutes holding can come out of nowhere at LHR nowadays and personally I like to be able to do that and still have the alternate up my sleeve.

In fact due to the security situation at the moment we are being told to take an hours holding fuel to LHR to cope with the chaos should an incident close the airport.

[L337]

overstress

......and Sword, or Cirrus is the CAA approved method for deciding what fuel we carry. So if we carry "Sword" then that is legal minimum fuel. Over and above what the pink CAA form says. So this 20 minutes does not apply to those of us who use Sword or Cirrus to uplift fuel.

In fact you can carry less than Sword, because all you have to carry is sufficient for the flight. If the commander decides that is less than Sword, he can.

I remember "Dangerous Dave" who fought his way to the top of the fuel league table, by always carrying less than Sword. Until one day he gave himself a terrible fright. After that he drifted down the table!

I now seem to have confused myself.

:p

L337

[Max Angle]

Over and above what the pink CAA form says. So this 20 minutes does not apply to those of us who use Sword or Cirrus to uplift fuel. I disagree completely with that statement. The fuel figure that the flight planning system throws up is a minimum (subject to any slight adjustments) legal fuel that you may depart with. The AIC is saying that in addition to the legal minimum you should carry some additional holding fuel when inbound to busy airfields in the UK. It's not a legal requirement they are simply giving advice.

As for fuel leagues it beggars belief that a company such as BA that prides itself, quite rightly, on it's flight safety standards still uses these.

[L337]

Disagree all you want. I quote.........


"Undestandably some pilots believe that this demands that they must uplift 20 minutes of extra fuel. However, the BA Fuel Policy (which is approved by the CAA) states that SWORD/CIRRUS flight plan fuel should be carried unless there are sound operational or economic reasons for not doing so."

L337

[Max Angle]

Every UK operators fuel policy is approved by the CAA and every fuel policy I have read states that sector fuel should be carried unless there are good reasons to carry more. The AIC is saying that inbound to airfields such as LHR there IS a "sound operational reason" to carry more fuel, it is highly unlikely that your system is including that extra fuel in the basic calculation.

The CAA are not saying you MUST carry extra fuel they are suggesting that it would be a good idea in certain situations, the final decision rests, quite correctly, with the skipper. I've made mine and I'm happy with it.

[411A]

Wonder what the UK CAA would have to say to the PIC of a flight approaching LHR who elected NOT to carry the extra "recommended" holding fuel, and then found that, due to holding delays, had to declare a low fuel emergency/priority...and, elected not to divert, or had no fuel to do so.:rolleyes:
Perhaps his/her hard earned license (if UK issued), might go bye-bye.:eek:

[FL245]

Does anyone know if this AIC has been replaced, cannot find it or any other on fuel reserves and the London TMA on the AIS system

Any ideas?

Thanks

[Carnage Matey!]

The CAA aren't stating you have to carry an extra 20 mins fuel they're just saying it would be a good idea to carry it unless you fancy a diversion. I've always believed that AIC was aimed at the infrequent visitors to LHR. The local operators are more than capable of reading the METARS and CTOTs and making an educated guess as to when LHR is going to be busy and when it isn't. At a guess I'd say the money saved by no carrying the extra 20 mins more than pays for the occasional diversion.

[TopBunk]

411A

... sigh...

why don't you just ..... oh sod it, I can't be bothered....

[Still a] Pr@t

Try commenting on something you know something about - like the Tristar :p

[Carnage Matey!]

Wonder what the UK CAA would have to say to the PIC of a flight approaching LHR who elected NOT to carry the extra "recommended" holding fuel, and then found that, due to holding delays, had to declare a low fuel emergency/priority...and, elected not to divert, or had no fuel to do so.

Absolutely nothing. Nor had they taken his licence (or mine) when I flew with him again 18 months later.

[scanscanscan]

Are you saying....This Captain and you arrived at LHR...and had to declare an Emergency low fuel state to get landed.... due holding required.... and you both elected not to divert.....or carry the recommended extra 20 mins fuel into LHR?
If this is the true case..... and the British CAA approve such an operation I think it will all change after someone runs out of fuel over a UK airport.

[Carnage Matey!]

I'm saying we arrived at LHR with ample holding fuel but an unforecast wx change led to extended holding and creeping EATs beyond the point at which we had committed to LHR. We were then left with the choice of diverting to LTN (single runway) or remaining in the hold for LHR (dual runway). Overall we decided the far safer option was to remain with two bits of tarmac to land on than one, as did the many other aircraft which landed in a similar state at LHR that night. Had we decided en masse to divert to Luton and Stansted you'd have found a whole load of fuel emergencies all waiting to land at single runway airports with no room for error in the event of a single runway closure.

If it all went tits up at LHR we could use the other main runway after a go around or R23, and in extremis Farnborough or Biggin Hill were available. After a diversion we'd have had nothing but Luton or at a push Stansted by eating into reserves. I'd rather stick with 4 runways in close proximity than 2 runways at busy single runway airports.

The CAA had a good look at the events of that particular evening and concluded that everybody had worked to the rules in what were difficult and unexpected cirumstances.

[Dan Winterland]

The runway behind you, the space above you - and fuel left in the bowser are all as equally as useful!

My previous employer had a policy of taking flight plan fuel wherever possible. A Captain could use his discretion to carry more but had to justify it in writing on the flight plan. I was amazed at the number of captains who tried to graticiate themselves to management by carrying flight plan fuel even though the forecast was saying otherwise, eg thunderstorms in the New York area. I averaged a fuel diversion once every 9 months in that company.

My present company would like us to minimise fuel carried, but doesn't take anyone to task over it. Despite flying in the tropics during the monsoon, I have not had one fuel diversion in three years. I can't be bothered to work out which policy is cheaper -but I know which is safer.

I think the advice to carry 20 minutes is sound and should be heeded. In fact, I'd carry 40!

[scanscanscan]

Having said all the above good stuff about 20mins fuel.
What do you all think about the Boeing 767 Qrh Min fuel drill as it affects the extra fuel you should load?
To me this drill implies...Where 2000kgs or less remains it should probably not be considered useable in a GoArd at your destination or alternate.
Having seen low fuel pressure lights come on with 8000ks on board during a normal climb out I am inclined to think 2000ks or less would stop the engines in a GoArd and this is why Boeing have a drill for it.
I never admired fuel flight plans that were planned to have you actioning the Qrh min fuel drill during your destination approach or enroute to the nearest flight plan alternate.
Probably Boeing has covered themselves legally if the drill is not or cannot be done and engines stop.
For the pilot to remain "Legal" at the subsequent court of enquiry
should he have loaded 2000ks more to his computer flight plan min fuel figure?
A further point concerns the switching off of the centre tank fuel pumps when 500kgs remain in the centre tank, does this mean 500kgs also should only be used in a min low fuel emergency situation i.e. When you are on your way or at your close in alternate and is concided unusable for normal operations? If so the fuel flight planning computer is not programmed for this.
Will the flight planning fuel computer programme have to be changed if a min fuel flight plan crash was to occur?