MOR'ed..... OUCH!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've no problem being called a weirdo but the politician bit was deeply offensive! 
It's all about what we are prepared to do with the fuel onboard I guess,and it looks like I would run away before you would.
I flew the 767 short haul only for a while, one of the best jobs I've had. From what you are saying the 747-400 is now off my wish list !
Regards.
It's all about what we are prepared to do with the fuel onboard I guess,and it looks like I would run away before you would.
I flew the 767 short haul only for a while, one of the best jobs I've had. From what you are saying the 747-400 is now off my wish list !
Regards.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Special Objective Check 2000 conducted by the CAA:
4.3.4 Recommendation 2 Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with 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 reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
Now my F question. Did the Commander dispatch with such provision in tanks or not?
4.3.4 Recommendation 2 Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with 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 reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
Now my F question. Did the Commander dispatch with such provision in tanks or not?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO This debate is getting a little silly...
Antigua acted iaw his company SOPs.. and those SOPs are approved by the CAA etc.
There was NO danger at any time. If Antigua had felt the situation "dangerous" he would not have acted the way he did (I suppose).
However, the fact is that fuel policy, and the busy airspace around LHR (and elsewhere) meant that the ATCO had his nose put slightly out of joint - fair enough. If arriving without loads of holding fuel affects the holding order / number of diversions / ATC workload etc. this becomes a commerical problem. So let ATC, the CAA and BA slug it out.
As far as we (pilots) are concerned, one follows SOPs as long as safety is not affected. I said elsewhere, Fuel in Tanks on Departure is largely not a safety issue - its what you do "as it runs out", and the gates you set yourself. This debate is entirely about the fact Antigua did just that. Under the SOP, he did not need to tell ATC a Go Around would result in an emergency call, just good sense and A'ship he did so.
Lets keep apart safety, and good commercial practice into LHR... If ATC do not like the low fuel states we are coming in with, then say so, loud & clear and frequently! But calling the situation "dangerous" as some have here is OTT...
Antigua acted iaw his company SOPs.. and those SOPs are approved by the CAA etc.
There was NO danger at any time. If Antigua had felt the situation "dangerous" he would not have acted the way he did (I suppose).
However, the fact is that fuel policy, and the busy airspace around LHR (and elsewhere) meant that the ATCO had his nose put slightly out of joint - fair enough. If arriving without loads of holding fuel affects the holding order / number of diversions / ATC workload etc. this becomes a commerical problem. So let ATC, the CAA and BA slug it out.
As far as we (pilots) are concerned, one follows SOPs as long as safety is not affected. I said elsewhere, Fuel in Tanks on Departure is largely not a safety issue - its what you do "as it runs out", and the gates you set yourself. This debate is entirely about the fact Antigua did just that. Under the SOP, he did not need to tell ATC a Go Around would result in an emergency call, just good sense and A'ship he did so.
Lets keep apart safety, and good commercial practice into LHR... If ATC do not like the low fuel states we are coming in with, then say so, loud & clear and frequently! But calling the situation "dangerous" as some have here is OTT...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ATSA, [who tries to keep "up to date"] can I ask Why a "certain" Far Eastern Company was PUBLICLY censured [spelling?!] in BOTH the "Meja" and "specialised" press for doing what Antigua does? Or am I missing something here?
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an ATCO, though not in the London TMA.
If you can't make a safe go-around from an approach we NEED to know as soon as that becomes apparent.
If you tell me that you don't have enough fuel to do so I WILL submit an MOR. As I believe that the situation is potentially dangerous. It is for the MOR investigators to ascertain the how & why of what happened & whether the rules have been broken, or if not, whether they should be changed.
Assuming that you operated in accordance with your company's policy then it is not you, but that policy which has been MOR'd.
What has been the company's attitude & response to the MOR?
If you can't make a safe go-around from an approach we NEED to know as soon as that becomes apparent.
If you tell me that you don't have enough fuel to do so I WILL submit an MOR. As I believe that the situation is potentially dangerous. It is for the MOR investigators to ascertain the how & why of what happened & whether the rules have been broken, or if not, whether they should be changed.
Assuming that you operated in accordance with your company's policy then it is not you, but that policy which has been MOR'd.
What has been the company's attitude & response to the MOR?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antiqua;
Actually, we have had the min fuel phraseology for a very long time. The problem with Avianca was that he NEVER said that he was a fuel emergency... The Capt. asked the FO if he had declared an emergency more than one time and the FO said that he had, but never at anytime had he actually told ATC. If he had, the problem wouldn't have happened...
regards
Actually, we have had the min fuel phraseology for a very long time. The problem with Avianca was that he NEVER said that he was a fuel emergency... The Capt. asked the FO if he had declared an emergency more than one time and the FO said that he had, but never at anytime had he actually told ATC. If he had, the problem wouldn't have happened...
regards
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua
The 'rules' you were told about regarding sheep were only a joke!!
Seriously though, as a non-pilot (ATC), how different are the Oz rules? Do they require more or less fuel......or is it not that simple?
we don't just have to think about the CAA/JAR rules, we have to operate to FAA rules in the US of A, OZ Rules (STRANGE) in OZ etc... etc...
The 'rules' you were told about regarding sheep were only a joke!! Seriously though, as a non-pilot (ATC), how different are the Oz rules? Do they require more or less fuel......or is it not that simple?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: EGTT/FAB/LGW/BOH/FAB/LGW
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the controller involved is doing the right thing by MOR'ing situations like this, it has to be the best way to highlight the problem and get something done about it. What will the airlines and the CAA take more notice of? A stack full of 1261s or a few excerpts from PPRUNE.
Perhaps this is the way to get
a: the airlines to load more fuel
b: the CAA to increase reserve minimas
c: the inclusion of "Fuel Emergency" into use in the UK.
Just the opinions of a lowly ATSA
SH
Perhaps this is the way to get
a: the airlines to load more fuel
b: the CAA to increase reserve minimas
c: the inclusion of "Fuel Emergency" into use in the UK.
Just the opinions of a lowly ATSA
SH
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiglet and Spotter:
The difference is that in Antiguas case had he gone around he would have had sufficient fuel to carry out a go-around and landing but this would be the final reserve fuel being burned. Hence he would be landing with less fuel than final reserve and an emergency would have to be declared on the go-around. This is legal and i.a.w. company CAA-approved fuel policy. Its one shot then an emergency.
In the case of the far eastern airline they were making an approach with significantly less fuel, so little in fact that flying a go-around to an expeditious landing would not even be possible. Its one shot then bust.
One of these scenarios is very uncomfortable, the other is downright reckless. That is why only one was reprimanded.
The difference is that in Antiguas case had he gone around he would have had sufficient fuel to carry out a go-around and landing but this would be the final reserve fuel being burned. Hence he would be landing with less fuel than final reserve and an emergency would have to be declared on the go-around. This is legal and i.a.w. company CAA-approved fuel policy. Its one shot then an emergency.
In the case of the far eastern airline they were making an approach with significantly less fuel, so little in fact that flying a go-around to an expeditious landing would not even be possible. Its one shot then bust.
One of these scenarios is very uncomfortable, the other is downright reckless. That is why only one was reprimanded.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotter
<<If you can't make a safe go-around from an approach we NEED to know as soon as that becomes apparent>>
Depends on what you mean by "safe".
(Some of) the rules in Nigel's outfit:
1. Mayday = WILL land below Reserve
2. PAN = MAY land below Reserve.
3. < 2hrs out from dest, given certain criteria, can reduce Fuel such that you will land with Reserve or more...
4. Reserve = 30 mins going round in circles at 1500'
5. A "Go Around" will use much of that Reserve Fuel (full power and all that).
IMHO, a Go Around at a little above Reserve will REQUIRE a visual or TIGHT radar circuit to avoid running out of fuel.
The above means that, according to the rules, the first ATC will know of the problem is the Mayday call early in the Go Around. This is not implicitly dangerous (unlike, say a fire), it is just an urgent (very urgent!) call demanding immediate assistance and priorty.
Anitgua "pre-empted" the above by suggesting to ATC to reduce the probability of a Go Around - seems good idea to me.
If ATC do not like the above (I am not sure I do, but its the rules from BA and approved by the CAA) then please say so, and not just here - but where it counts!
NoD
<<If you can't make a safe go-around from an approach we NEED to know as soon as that becomes apparent>>
Depends on what you mean by "safe".
(Some of) the rules in Nigel's outfit:
1. Mayday = WILL land below Reserve
2. PAN = MAY land below Reserve.
3. < 2hrs out from dest, given certain criteria, can reduce Fuel such that you will land with Reserve or more...
4. Reserve = 30 mins going round in circles at 1500'
5. A "Go Around" will use much of that Reserve Fuel (full power and all that).
IMHO, a Go Around at a little above Reserve will REQUIRE a visual or TIGHT radar circuit to avoid running out of fuel.
The above means that, according to the rules, the first ATC will know of the problem is the Mayday call early in the Go Around. This is not implicitly dangerous (unlike, say a fire), it is just an urgent (very urgent!) call demanding immediate assistance and priorty.
Anitgua "pre-empted" the above by suggesting to ATC to reduce the probability of a Go Around - seems good idea to me.
If ATC do not like the above (I am not sure I do, but its the rules from BA and approved by the CAA) then please say so, and not just here - but where it counts!
NoD
Controversial, moi?
The issue is getting cloudy here.
Antigua complied with CAA approved company SOPs. Had he diverted instead of using his diversion fuel in the hold then he would have ended up at his diversion field LGW with minimum reserve anyway ie 30mins at 1500' in BAs case.
The policy works well most of the time however should the weather forecast be bad we take lots of extra and are not questioned about that decision.
My point would be that due to commercial pressure we are spaced at 2.5 miles where possible, often get landing clearance at very low level or after landing have to stand on the brakes and vacate soonest because the guy behind is already over the fence!
Couple this situation where there is undoubted (legal) commercial pressure via company SOPs to carry minimum fuel and it all borders on the unacceptable. Where else in the world do ATC have 2.5 mile approach separation to accommodate the amount of traffic?
LHRs holding delays are the stuff of legend. The real dilemma is the complete unpredictability of the length of those delays. It is about time the regulatory authorities said enough is enough and insist a) on more realistic approach spacing and b) that companies cannot promulgate a fuel policy that is acceptable in many situations but inappropriate for LHR.
I believe the situation at present is a disater waiting to happen.
before anybody gets the wrong idea BA managers do not stand at the door with a big stick should a pilot take extra fuel. I and my colleagues have no problem taking extra if we want it but the culture is to take minimum where possible but I say that minimum has become too little.
Antigua complied with CAA approved company SOPs. Had he diverted instead of using his diversion fuel in the hold then he would have ended up at his diversion field LGW with minimum reserve anyway ie 30mins at 1500' in BAs case.
The policy works well most of the time however should the weather forecast be bad we take lots of extra and are not questioned about that decision.
My point would be that due to commercial pressure we are spaced at 2.5 miles where possible, often get landing clearance at very low level or after landing have to stand on the brakes and vacate soonest because the guy behind is already over the fence!
Couple this situation where there is undoubted (legal) commercial pressure via company SOPs to carry minimum fuel and it all borders on the unacceptable. Where else in the world do ATC have 2.5 mile approach separation to accommodate the amount of traffic?
LHRs holding delays are the stuff of legend. The real dilemma is the complete unpredictability of the length of those delays. It is about time the regulatory authorities said enough is enough and insist a) on more realistic approach spacing and b) that companies cannot promulgate a fuel policy that is acceptable in many situations but inappropriate for LHR.
I believe the situation at present is a disater waiting to happen.
before anybody gets the wrong idea BA managers do not stand at the door with a big stick should a pilot take extra fuel. I and my colleagues have no problem taking extra if we want it but the culture is to take minimum where possible but I say that minimum has become too little.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read all the posts and frankly I'm still struggling with the notion that a GA under normal operations could result in a Mayday due to fuel remaining. OK, I have no doubt that were it to happen then an expedious circuit would be flown and a landing made. However, and I ask the question, were there to be a serious accident on the landing runway is there contingency within LHR local procedures to assure the other runways and services remain available bearing in mind the distraction of the incident? Having witnessed such an event at LAX with a Continental DC10 groundlooped and on fire on the north runway complex, the airport all but ground to halt for a period of time with emergency vehicles and all rushing across the airfield to the accident.
I know it would be a bad day all round, but do the local procedures cater for such an event?
I know it would be a bad day all round, but do the local procedures cater for such an event?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Sig...
<<frankly I'm still struggling with the notion that a GA under normal operations could result in a Mayday due to fuel remaining>>
Best its in the open then!
FYI the policy is little altered if the airfield is single runway, which could be even more interesting...
What do other airlines use as their policies in these circs? i.e. in the hold, and going below the Fuel reqd to proceed to Dest, GA, proceed to Div and land with Reserve...
NoD
<<frankly I'm still struggling with the notion that a GA under normal operations could result in a Mayday due to fuel remaining>>
Best its in the open then!
FYI the policy is little altered if the airfield is single runway, which could be even more interesting...
What do other airlines use as their policies in these circs? i.e. in the hold, and going below the Fuel reqd to proceed to Dest, GA, proceed to Div and land with Reserve...
NoD
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read all the post, it makes me very worried that BA can carry so little fuel that a Go Around can cause a MAYDAY due fuel shortage. I am an ATCO and for what ever reason things do go wrong, Go Arounds occur ( a couple of times per day).
Imagine if every aircraft in the London TMA was flown in the same manner. Somebody calls a MAYDAY, we break aircraft off the approach to accomodate it. How many aircraft behind would also call?
I think Anitgua did the right thing and asked for a bit extra.This forum has high lighted a problem. It is the BA Management who are being MORed. (And/or the CAA if they allowed the SOP.)
I'm glad this subject has come up, unfortunately ATCO's cannot get near the flightdeck these days, so unfortunately we have to have these debates on this forum rather than face to face.
Imagine if every aircraft in the London TMA was flown in the same manner. Somebody calls a MAYDAY, we break aircraft off the approach to accomodate it. How many aircraft behind would also call?
I think Anitgua did the right thing and asked for a bit extra.This forum has high lighted a problem. It is the BA Management who are being MORed. (And/or the CAA if they allowed the SOP.)
I'm glad this subject has come up, unfortunately ATCO's cannot get near the flightdeck these days, so unfortunately we have to have these debates on this forum rather than face to face.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It may all be legal. But it scares the willies out of me.
Not the fact that an aircraft may be low on fuel on arrival at destination, you understand, but the thought of a pilot who's so confident that he plans it! Antigua, you are destined for management and make no mistake - always assuming of course that you're not there already and just setting an example.
There you are, that confidence again, Antigua. Obviously your aeroplane will never suffer a problem that takes a few minutes to sort out and there is just no way that you will ever cock-up. It doesn't take much to block a runway for a few minutes - a hydraulic spill, burst tyre, birdstrike. All of these can happen on the nicest of nice days and just because there's another runway doesn't mean you get first dibs on it. And even if you are the customer (and that depends very much from where you look at the airline business) you, the pilot, are part of the team - e.g. no sales agents, no pax = no need for pilots. Everyone in the team has their job to do and their own responsibilities. If ATC send you around there?s a reason - believe me, no controller will do it unless there?s a real reason even if it's not apparent to you - and you can play your part by planning to have enough fuel that you (and your colleagues who are company people to the core) don't compound the problems by immediately calling an emergency. And I don't care if the rules say that you can operate that way, it doesn't make you right.
Well that should get your goat Antigua.
Reminds me of the joke about what's the difference between G*d and a British Airways Captain.
And just in case you've never heard it ....... G*d doesn't think he's an airline captain.
Not the fact that an aircraft may be low on fuel on arrival at destination, you understand, but the thought of a pilot who's so confident that he plans it! Antigua, you are destined for management and make no mistake - always assuming of course that you're not there already and just setting an example.
There is simply NO fuel carried to cover ATC and/or other aeroplane cock-ups during the landing process.
Well that should get your goat Antigua.
Reminds me of the joke about what's the difference between G*d and a British Airways Captain.
And just in case you've never heard it ....... G*d doesn't think he's an airline captain.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon (and others)
Please don't blame Antigua... its BA policy approved by the CAA.
If you don't like it, please come up with an alternative:
1. What is the minimum acceptable fuel to re-plan on landing at LHR with? (I say replan because we never plan to arrive with reserve - its only allowed after unforeseen extra fuel usage such as long holding, unexpected headwinds etc.)
2. At what stage / Fuel state do you call "Pan"?
3. At what stage / Fuel state do you call "Mayday"?
4. What other options are there as the fuel runs down?
NB The answers cannot include:
1. Divert. In SE England, you are diverting to another busy airfield, probably single runway, and joining the queue there. So the problem is not solved, just transferred.
2. Make any other radio call. UK policy is that there is no "Low Fuel" call or similar. Its PAN, Mayday or silence...
And again - what do other airlines do? I previously flew for another UK LH scheduled carrier, and I believe the policy was very similar...
NoD
[Edited for spelling!]
Please don't blame Antigua... its BA policy approved by the CAA.
If you don't like it, please come up with an alternative:
1. What is the minimum acceptable fuel to re-plan on landing at LHR with? (I say replan because we never plan to arrive with reserve - its only allowed after unforeseen extra fuel usage such as long holding, unexpected headwinds etc.)
2. At what stage / Fuel state do you call "Pan"?
3. At what stage / Fuel state do you call "Mayday"?
4. What other options are there as the fuel runs down?
NB The answers cannot include:
1. Divert. In SE England, you are diverting to another busy airfield, probably single runway, and joining the queue there. So the problem is not solved, just transferred.
2. Make any other radio call. UK policy is that there is no "Low Fuel" call or similar. Its PAN, Mayday or silence...
And again - what do other airlines do? I previously flew for another UK LH scheduled carrier, and I believe the policy was very similar...
NoD
[Edited for spelling!]
Last edited by NigelOnDraft; 22nd Apr 2002 at 21:08.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to this debate I would point out that this situation is not unique to long haul aircraft and I can cite several similar butt-clenching cases on short haul, where we plan our fuel to the nearest 100kgs with pretty recent info on delays. Any combination of late climbs, sub-optimal levels, unforecast headwinds, early descents and speed restrictions can see your contingency fuel burned before you make the holding fix. Add to that 'no delay' becoming an EAT out of the blue and suddenly your faced with calculating just how long you can stay in the hold and still have fuel to make an approach, divert and keep a bit spare for mum. When that time is reached its a choice of stay where you are, burn the div fuel and hopefully land at destination with a bit to spare or divert, burn the div fuel and hopefully land at diversion with a bit to spare. Very much between a rock and a hard place and diverting from a dual runway airport to a single runway airport seriously narrows down your options!
Guest
Posts: n/a
NoD,
I don't blame Antigua for BA policy. I dare say that 2.5 mile spacing on final is ATC policy - everyone's under pressure these days.
But that's no reason to all but promote the policy here and, no doubt, on the flight deck in Antigua's case. If I'm a bit less antagonistic than in my last post, there's no straight answer to your questions - all I'm asking for is a little common sense. I just don't think planning that tightly on fuel, even on a nice day, is sensible.
Even Antigua says he will carry more fuel when the weather is forecast to be poor - but I wonder how much. Just enough to cater for the holding that he, with his years of experience, thinks is reasonable for the weather conditions?
OK, I don't know how many tonnes of fuel are needed for a go-around and a normal radar circuit or whatever is likely at the destination airport, but I would say it's sensible to try and have that much as you establish on the ILS at the end of any flight. I do know that every tonne that you land with burnt more fuel during the flight but the balance is what safety is all about.
If you didn't carry emergency oxygen on every flight you could save a lot of fuel too, and let's face it, it's not used that often (as many flights as end up doing a go-around?), but few people would advocate doing away with it because on the day you need it, you want it to be there.
The post that started all this off seems to me to demonstrate a lack of this simple common sense on Antigua's part - for such tight fuel planning - and on the controller's - for taking exception (if that's what happened and bear in mind we probably haven't heard the controller's side of the story) to the legitimate request for some extra space.
At what point should a pilot call PAN and MAYDAY - common sense says when the situation dictates. I guess PAN when the situation looks like it isn't going to pan out - excuse the expression - the way everyone expected and fuel may become a problem and MAYDAY when it is a problem. In any case, with a fuel shortage, unless there is some other problem that means fuel is being burnt at a greater rate than expected (or is not available), the situation will deteriorate through PAN to MAYDAY. And I would be surprised if you didn't get the same priority for a PAN as for a MAYDAY as soon as you called it. I don?t think a 'Low Fuel' call adds much - you'd get the same reaction from ATC as for a PAN or MAYDAY - and when the UK rules on such things were not so clear, Low fuel calls appeared to be blatantly abused by some carriers.
What are the other options? Keep ATC in the picture. It should already be obvious that on the face of it, I think an MOR was an overreaction in this case - but hopefully, in other cases, it will enable the controller to plan the traffic taking account of all the relevant information.
I know this all sounds a bit idealistic but I don't have any other answers right now - I just know I don't like the ones I'm hearing.
I don't blame Antigua for BA policy. I dare say that 2.5 mile spacing on final is ATC policy - everyone's under pressure these days.
But that's no reason to all but promote the policy here and, no doubt, on the flight deck in Antigua's case. If I'm a bit less antagonistic than in my last post, there's no straight answer to your questions - all I'm asking for is a little common sense. I just don't think planning that tightly on fuel, even on a nice day, is sensible.
Even Antigua says he will carry more fuel when the weather is forecast to be poor - but I wonder how much. Just enough to cater for the holding that he, with his years of experience, thinks is reasonable for the weather conditions?
OK, I don't know how many tonnes of fuel are needed for a go-around and a normal radar circuit or whatever is likely at the destination airport, but I would say it's sensible to try and have that much as you establish on the ILS at the end of any flight. I do know that every tonne that you land with burnt more fuel during the flight but the balance is what safety is all about.
If you didn't carry emergency oxygen on every flight you could save a lot of fuel too, and let's face it, it's not used that often (as many flights as end up doing a go-around?), but few people would advocate doing away with it because on the day you need it, you want it to be there.
The post that started all this off seems to me to demonstrate a lack of this simple common sense on Antigua's part - for such tight fuel planning - and on the controller's - for taking exception (if that's what happened and bear in mind we probably haven't heard the controller's side of the story) to the legitimate request for some extra space.
At what point should a pilot call PAN and MAYDAY - common sense says when the situation dictates. I guess PAN when the situation looks like it isn't going to pan out - excuse the expression - the way everyone expected and fuel may become a problem and MAYDAY when it is a problem. In any case, with a fuel shortage, unless there is some other problem that means fuel is being burnt at a greater rate than expected (or is not available), the situation will deteriorate through PAN to MAYDAY. And I would be surprised if you didn't get the same priority for a PAN as for a MAYDAY as soon as you called it. I don?t think a 'Low Fuel' call adds much - you'd get the same reaction from ATC as for a PAN or MAYDAY - and when the UK rules on such things were not so clear, Low fuel calls appeared to be blatantly abused by some carriers.
What are the other options? Keep ATC in the picture. It should already be obvious that on the face of it, I think an MOR was an overreaction in this case - but hopefully, in other cases, it will enable the controller to plan the traffic taking account of all the relevant information.
I know this all sounds a bit idealistic but I don't have any other answers right now - I just know I don't like the ones I'm hearing.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N.O.D
To quote Antigua:
'.....we not have enough fuel to divert to ANYWHERE, but we don’t necessarily have enough fuel to do a go-around AT ALL, even a truncated one. Did you know that? '
Come on Nigel!WHO ultimately lets it get to that state?Going round in circles 'till you've no options!!! Being MOR'd doesn't worry him he says,well neither does running out of fuel it seems.But he's been doing it for so long that he can see the future and he just 'knows' that its safe.
Allowing a 747 or indeed even a Cherokee to get to this position is to me, incredible.If I was in the back of the thing knowing that was the case I would be very unimpressed, to say the least.
The Boeing I fly gives a 'LOW FUEL' warning at around 45 mins worth which is about half an hours holding fuel plus a Go around plus quick vectored circuit.The circumstances described above are way below that.
You needed some suggestions:
1)Carry more fuel.
2) Divert to LGW,STN,EMA,BHX,MAN,GLA,PIK or a bunch of others if delays are too long.(if there is holding at all the above you should never have got airborne!)
3)Say 'Pan' well before getting to the state in the opening quote.
4)Say 'Mayday'shortly afterwards if it aint happening.
5)Search in vain for the handle between your legs!!!!
What's the point in having years of experience and tons of knowledge if you ignore it all to 'follow the policy' straight into a field?
To quote Antigua:
'.....we not have enough fuel to divert to ANYWHERE, but we don’t necessarily have enough fuel to do a go-around AT ALL, even a truncated one. Did you know that? '
Come on Nigel!WHO ultimately lets it get to that state?Going round in circles 'till you've no options!!! Being MOR'd doesn't worry him he says,well neither does running out of fuel it seems.But he's been doing it for so long that he can see the future and he just 'knows' that its safe.
Allowing a 747 or indeed even a Cherokee to get to this position is to me, incredible.If I was in the back of the thing knowing that was the case I would be very unimpressed, to say the least.
The Boeing I fly gives a 'LOW FUEL' warning at around 45 mins worth which is about half an hours holding fuel plus a Go around plus quick vectored circuit.The circumstances described above are way below that.
You needed some suggestions:
1)Carry more fuel.
2) Divert to LGW,STN,EMA,BHX,MAN,GLA,PIK or a bunch of others if delays are too long.(if there is holding at all the above you should never have got airborne!)
3)Say 'Pan' well before getting to the state in the opening quote.
4)Say 'Mayday'shortly afterwards if it aint happening.
5)Search in vain for the handle between your legs!!!!
What's the point in having years of experience and tons of knowledge if you ignore it all to 'follow the policy' straight into a field?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa del CYYZ
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua,
I actually work with the Director concerned, and there are some things that you have incorrectly assumed.
The MOR was submitted not because he had his nose put out of joint but for exactly the reasons stated by other ATCO's.....that your aircraft was in a position where you had declared how low on fuel you were.........your action of informing him was appreciated and he was grateful for you doing so. He was in no way annoyed or upset by your information. However he was absolutely correct to enquire as to what would happen if you did have to go around...........what if the previous lander, burst a tyre or had some kind of landing accident?
Reasonable question surely?
Your email however has been doing the rounds at work, and I can assure you that your comments regarding the LL Directors lack of suitable final approach spacing have not gone down very well, and neither did the tone of the end of that mail. Contrary to your belief most go-arounds at Heathrow are not caused by inadequate final approach spacing..........which is FYI done superbly by very skilled people in a very intense situation.......I would challenge you to do an hour of LL FIN. The majority of goarounds are caused by late runway vacations.
As has already been stated on here, operating as a regular into Heathrow, I think it is misguided to put oneself in a position where one does not have enough fuel to make at least one go-around without getting into a drastic mayday situation.
Some of your assumptions and comments about my collegue have not been appreciated, and have been read and noted by the controller concerned.
I actually work with the Director concerned, and there are some things that you have incorrectly assumed.
The MOR was submitted not because he had his nose put out of joint but for exactly the reasons stated by other ATCO's.....that your aircraft was in a position where you had declared how low on fuel you were.........your action of informing him was appreciated and he was grateful for you doing so. He was in no way annoyed or upset by your information. However he was absolutely correct to enquire as to what would happen if you did have to go around...........what if the previous lander, burst a tyre or had some kind of landing accident?
Reasonable question surely?
Your email however has been doing the rounds at work, and I can assure you that your comments regarding the LL Directors lack of suitable final approach spacing have not gone down very well, and neither did the tone of the end of that mail. Contrary to your belief most go-arounds at Heathrow are not caused by inadequate final approach spacing..........which is FYI done superbly by very skilled people in a very intense situation.......I would challenge you to do an hour of LL FIN. The majority of goarounds are caused by late runway vacations.
As has already been stated on here, operating as a regular into Heathrow, I think it is misguided to put oneself in a position where one does not have enough fuel to make at least one go-around without getting into a drastic mayday situation.
Some of your assumptions and comments about my collegue have not been appreciated, and have been read and noted by the controller concerned.