Virgin 901 25th Nov - fuel!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin 901 25th Nov - fuel!
Just a quick thanks to the chaps at Scottish and London who allowed us to stay high on our arrival yesterday. We were aware that the usual positioning for the LAM3A has us descending to F280 well before we'd ideally go down, and we were a little tighter for fuel than we'd like, so we asked through Scottish if we could stay at F400 'for fuel reasons'.
It seemed, though, that one or two controllers interpreted that as just short of a fuel emergency, and were anticipating us calling a Pan, or worse, on the way in. Well, thanks chaps, but it wasn't that bad! We like to arrive at the final holding fix with 10 tonnes of fuel, and we anticipated being a tonne below that if we accepted the early descent. That would have potentially been a problem had we needed to hold for a significant period - which was forecast. Being able to stay at F400 allowed us to arrive at the hold with the desired 10 tonnes - and, of course, the delays evaporated as we entered the hold!
Thought the explanation might help - and it was nice to know that you were ready for us if we'd been as low on gas as you feared!
It seemed, though, that one or two controllers interpreted that as just short of a fuel emergency, and were anticipating us calling a Pan, or worse, on the way in. Well, thanks chaps, but it wasn't that bad! We like to arrive at the final holding fix with 10 tonnes of fuel, and we anticipated being a tonne below that if we accepted the early descent. That would have potentially been a problem had we needed to hold for a significant period - which was forecast. Being able to stay at F400 allowed us to arrive at the hold with the desired 10 tonnes - and, of course, the delays evaporated as we entered the hold!
Thought the explanation might help - and it was nice to know that you were ready for us if we'd been as low on gas as you feared!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Small Island
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanx for your reply Scroggs, it’s nice to be appreciated. I was one of the controllers involved (127.82). There was probably a minor case of Chinese Whispers as the message was passed down the line. Combined with the fact that fuel is so rarely used as a request for special handling, it was probably best to be prepared for “Houston we have a slight problem”. Giving you info re holding time etc, hopefully kept you in the picture and aided with your decision making.
Giving us plenty of warning like that is greatly appreciated. It was far easier to try and fit you in than it would have been to deal with a sudden diversion or emergency. However it sadly can’t always be done and declaring a pan may be your only option to getting a preferred route or profile.
Glad to have been of assistance.
Giving us plenty of warning like that is greatly appreciated. It was far easier to try and fit you in than it would have been to deal with a sudden diversion or emergency. However it sadly can’t always be done and declaring a pan may be your only option to getting a preferred route or profile.
Glad to have been of assistance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paracab
nothing unusual, just slightly less cooperative winds than forecast over the previous 12 hours en route from Narita. To put it in perspective, our minimum diversion fuel to Gatwick or Birmingham from the LAM hold would have been about 7.5 tonnes. The A346 burns gas quite greedily at lowish level, so arriving at the anticipated 15+ minute hold with 9 tonnes would have caused a little sucking of teeth which could have been - and was - avoided by asking to stay high for a little longer. As things turned out, we not only arrived at the hold with 10 tonnes, we landed with 9 or so. A damn fine result, made possible by some useful early information and cooperation. Once again, thanks.
Scroggs
nothing unusual, just slightly less cooperative winds than forecast over the previous 12 hours en route from Narita. To put it in perspective, our minimum diversion fuel to Gatwick or Birmingham from the LAM hold would have been about 7.5 tonnes. The A346 burns gas quite greedily at lowish level, so arriving at the anticipated 15+ minute hold with 9 tonnes would have caused a little sucking of teeth which could have been - and was - avoided by asking to stay high for a little longer. As things turned out, we not only arrived at the hold with 10 tonnes, we landed with 9 or so. A damn fine result, made possible by some useful early information and cooperation. Once again, thanks.
Scroggs
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southampton
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs
Again hope I'm not stirring the same can of worms opened by para - But did you really feel that much happier arriving at the hold with 10 tonnes than you would have felt if the dial had read 9?
Understand your comments about using 7.5 for the div etc. just appears strange to me (the uneducated ATCO) that your comfort zone seems so strict, or is that the company line?
Understand your comments about using 7.5 for the div etc. just appears strange to me (the uneducated ATCO) that your comfort zone seems so strict, or is that the company line?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The frequency jungle
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StillDark&Hungry
Think about it. The bus and every other plane burns fuel at a rate you dont seem to understand. One ton can make the difference between landing at destination or having to divert. Not sticking to the rules in this business could mean landing short of the runway. Maybe its just in the undershoot area and everybody is ok or it could be further short and nobody is ok.
Rules is rules, if you want your career to last that is!!
Think about it. The bus and every other plane burns fuel at a rate you dont seem to understand. One ton can make the difference between landing at destination or having to divert. Not sticking to the rules in this business could mean landing short of the runway. Maybe its just in the undershoot area and everybody is ok or it could be further short and nobody is ok.
Rules is rules, if you want your career to last that is!!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...scroggs stayed within the rules quite nicely by early communication and negotiation. A good result.
A B727 cargo flight into Perth a while back learn't this lesson the hard way... three approaches and a landing on the third approach... engines winding down...
A landing on vapours is not an acceptable outcome for anyone.
A B727 cargo flight into Perth a while back learn't this lesson the hard way... three approaches and a landing on the third approach... engines winding down...
A landing on vapours is not an acceptable outcome for anyone.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still Dark
yes, I did! That tonne only represents about 6 minutes' flying at normal holding levels and speeds, and that's 6 minutes' thinking time I'd rather hang on to than throw away needlessly. As far as I'm concerned, it was far better to do a bit of early negotiation than it would have been to spring a diversion once in the hold. The diversion fuel figures I mentioned are minimums. There is no sense in backing yourself into a corner if you don't have to!
Scroggs
yes, I did! That tonne only represents about 6 minutes' flying at normal holding levels and speeds, and that's 6 minutes' thinking time I'd rather hang on to than throw away needlessly. As far as I'm concerned, it was far better to do a bit of early negotiation than it would have been to spring a diversion once in the hold. The diversion fuel figures I mentioned are minimums. There is no sense in backing yourself into a corner if you don't have to!
Scroggs
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs
Just out of casual interest, when you order the fuel do you take into account the increasing number of likely level restrictions you are likely to encounter once you hit UK airspace? One of the ones you managed to avoid yesterday was FL310 level by LARDI, designed to get you below London Sector 11 into Sector 10. Great idea from an ATC point of view but not a great help to your fuel burn figures.
In an ever increasing traffic environment these restrictions are becoming more frequent and whilst every controller I know would be happy to help you out if you suffer greater than anticipated headwinds, if the practice starts to become commonplace the goodwill will evaporate.
Just out of casual interest, when you order the fuel do you take into account the increasing number of likely level restrictions you are likely to encounter once you hit UK airspace? One of the ones you managed to avoid yesterday was FL310 level by LARDI, designed to get you below London Sector 11 into Sector 10. Great idea from an ATC point of view but not a great help to your fuel burn figures.
In an ever increasing traffic environment these restrictions are becoming more frequent and whilst every controller I know would be happy to help you out if you suffer greater than anticipated headwinds, if the practice starts to become commonplace the goodwill will evaporate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a flight planning issue here which we are trying to address through our ops organisation. Obviously, if our planners are aware of routine level restrictions, these will be incorporated into the computer flight plans. For some reason, that wasn't the case the other day, and at the moment I don't know why not.
Unfortunately, the crews rarely do a particular route frequently enough to become familiar with regular ATC restrictions so, if they aren't notamed or otherwise notified to the crew, there's no way of anticipating them when deciding on the fuel load. On this occasion, we were aware that there may be level restrictions, but we had no definitive indication as to what they would be.
We do, of course, build into the fuel planning a contingency factor, but this is easily used up in the cut and thrust of level changes over the great Russian FA (which is procedurally controlled with large gaps between same-way levels), never mind the vicissitudes of the wind and weather! That contingency fuel equates to 15 minutes' holding at destination. If it's been used en-route, there isn't a lot of flex before a stay/divert decision is pressing.
Scroggs
Unfortunately, the crews rarely do a particular route frequently enough to become familiar with regular ATC restrictions so, if they aren't notamed or otherwise notified to the crew, there's no way of anticipating them when deciding on the fuel load. On this occasion, we were aware that there may be level restrictions, but we had no definitive indication as to what they would be.
We do, of course, build into the fuel planning a contingency factor, but this is easily used up in the cut and thrust of level changes over the great Russian FA (which is procedurally controlled with large gaps between same-way levels), never mind the vicissitudes of the wind and weather! That contingency fuel equates to 15 minutes' holding at destination. If it's been used en-route, there isn't a lot of flex before a stay/divert decision is pressing.
Scroggs
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scroggs ...
Speaking as an ops / ATC Cell bod, the problem we have with these regs, and incorporating them into CFPs is that the majority of them are tactically introduced as opposed to notam'd or forecast. Factors affecting their usage could be as diverse as staff shortages, wx, aircraft demand, radar unserviceabillities etc etc
It depends a lot on how much time in advance your CFP is produced from your report time as to when the info on ATC tactical regulations is available.
the easiest option would be to increase your 'holding fuel' allowance, but again that depends on company SOPs etc etc.
But from a flight planning dept perspective, it's not easy to give you accurate info to that degree unfortunately.
It depends a lot on how much time in advance your CFP is produced from your report time as to when the info on ATC tactical regulations is available.
the easiest option would be to increase your 'holding fuel' allowance, but again that depends on company SOPs etc etc.
But from a flight planning dept perspective, it's not easy to give you accurate info to that degree unfortunately.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply Scroggs (and ghost rider). I guess it comes as more of a surprise to you long haul chaps. The guys who fly the domestic routes are well aware of the restrictions, having to fly them day in, day out. In fact many of them try pre-emptive strikes: 'Is the MARGO restriction in force?' is a common question from the Scottish TMA inbounds. (It usually is BTW)
I believe these expected restrictions are published on the STAR charts even though we ATC types will apply them all the time, some of the time or not at all. Of course, some restrictions are applied well before the commencement of the STAR so might not be as apparent to pilots or ops guys.
I believe these expected restrictions are published on the STAR charts even though we ATC types will apply them all the time, some of the time or not at all. Of course, some restrictions are applied well before the commencement of the STAR so might not be as apparent to pilots or ops guys.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the LAM3A arrival, the only restrictions published - to us at least - are at Logan and Saber (off the top of my head) at F250 and F150 respectively, which are actually slightly above the ideal descent profile for an A346. We, and probably most other long haul operators, have quite a few canned routes from the Far East, and there's no way of knowing which one you're going to get until you turn up at the aircraft. As you say, any other tactical restrictions aren't published to the crew, and the CFP is obviously going to be generated up to 18 hours before our arrival in the area in question, by which time everything may have changed anyway!
We can and do generate higher fuel minima for factors which we know will cause problems, and certain arrival times at EGLL fall into that category, but we'd be reluctant to make a ruling that we should carry extra fuel in case tactical restrictions exist. You could generate reasons for extra fuel ad infinitum, and it costs a lot to carry the stuff 6000 miles to find you don't need it!
In any case, whatever rules or procedures you make, there will always be an occasion where some flexibility is needed. All we can do is plan for, say, the 95 percentile scenario, and trust the crews to use their experience and charm to cover the other 5% when the plan doesn't work as advertised. It will always be thus, I fear!
We can and do generate higher fuel minima for factors which we know will cause problems, and certain arrival times at EGLL fall into that category, but we'd be reluctant to make a ruling that we should carry extra fuel in case tactical restrictions exist. You could generate reasons for extra fuel ad infinitum, and it costs a lot to carry the stuff 6000 miles to find you don't need it!
In any case, whatever rules or procedures you make, there will always be an occasion where some flexibility is needed. All we can do is plan for, say, the 95 percentile scenario, and trust the crews to use their experience and charm to cover the other 5% when the plan doesn't work as advertised. It will always be thus, I fear!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southampton
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs, 126,7
Please don't misunderstand me guys, was just curious.
Was approximately
aware of your fuel burn rate but by adding specific figures you seem to be enhancing the point I was trying to make
:
ie. How much happier can any person on board feel arriving at LAM with 60 mins fuel as opposed to 54? All I'm saying is, that in % terms it doesn't seem that much different.
Was approximately
aware of your fuel burn rate but by adding specific figures you seem to be enhancing the point I was trying to make :ie. How much happier can any person on board feel arriving at LAM with 60 mins fuel as opposed to 54? All I'm saying is, that in % terms it doesn't seem that much different.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still
don't worry, I haven't taken any offence!
The fuel we arrive at the hold with has to be sufficient not only to hold for a while, but to make an approach, go around, then divert to our No1 diversion, hold for 30 minutes, make an approach and land. I can't reduce, or use that fuel, which amounts to about 6 or 7 of the 10 tonnes I'm planning to have on arrival at the hold. Therefore, that 1 tonne saved (in this case) represents about 25-30% of my absolute maximum available holding time. In practice, I'd be taking a lot on trust if I went down to the minimum fuel for the arrival/go around/divert etc. before I made those kinds of decisions, so, realistically I've probably got 2 - 2.5 tonnes to play with (which is the 15 minutes' contingency fuel I referred to in an earlier post - which may have been absorbed by unfavourable winds or levels). Therefore, that tonne saved may represent as much as 50% of my available hold time - which may well make the difference between arriving at destination, or diverting. That's why I feel happier having it on board!
Scroggs
don't worry, I haven't taken any offence!
The fuel we arrive at the hold with has to be sufficient not only to hold for a while, but to make an approach, go around, then divert to our No1 diversion, hold for 30 minutes, make an approach and land. I can't reduce, or use that fuel, which amounts to about 6 or 7 of the 10 tonnes I'm planning to have on arrival at the hold. Therefore, that 1 tonne saved (in this case) represents about 25-30% of my absolute maximum available holding time. In practice, I'd be taking a lot on trust if I went down to the minimum fuel for the arrival/go around/divert etc. before I made those kinds of decisions, so, realistically I've probably got 2 - 2.5 tonnes to play with (which is the 15 minutes' contingency fuel I referred to in an earlier post - which may have been absorbed by unfavourable winds or levels). Therefore, that tonne saved may represent as much as 50% of my available hold time - which may well make the difference between arriving at destination, or diverting. That's why I feel happier having it on board!
Scroggs
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't this thread just highlight the need for ATC and pilots to get together as often as possible-preferably in the form of official fam flights for ATC and regular visits to the ATC centres and towers for the crews.