MOR'ed..... OUCH!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terrain safe...
Some humour much appreciated...!!
I should add that I find the LHR (and UK in general) ATCOs by far away the most professional worldwide, and also the most helpful in terms of working with us...
It is for this reason that I (and others?) ask for their opionions and thoughts here. We workd with them every day - the more we know of their pressures, and they ours, we can increase the overall level of safety (primarily), and commerical benefit (secondarily).
Re the 2.5NM spacing - its a circle. The "airlines" (the Mgmt, NOT the Flt Crew) demand tighter spacing, ATC provide it very well (but occasionally let down by "late vacations" - for which read, unable always to comply with optimum). The whole thing is getting very tight, and I, for one, believe it will end in tears...
Please do not think I "support" 100% the BA Fuel Policy, hence why I am here...
NoD
Some humour much appreciated...!!
I should add that I find the LHR (and UK in general) ATCOs by far away the most professional worldwide, and also the most helpful in terms of working with us...
It is for this reason that I (and others?) ask for their opionions and thoughts here. We workd with them every day - the more we know of their pressures, and they ours, we can increase the overall level of safety (primarily), and commerical benefit (secondarily).
Re the 2.5NM spacing - its a circle. The "airlines" (the Mgmt, NOT the Flt Crew) demand tighter spacing, ATC provide it very well (but occasionally let down by "late vacations" - for which read, unable always to comply with optimum). The whole thing is getting very tight, and I, for one, believe it will end in tears...
Please do not think I "support" 100% the BA Fuel Policy, hence why I am here...
NoD
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelonDraft
What wound me up(by pprune standards anyway)was the implication that having sparse amounts of fuel for holding was the fault of your company,approved by the CAA. For the umpteenth time it is up to the PIC to load extra fuel when required, it is their responsibility in law to do so,pressure or not.
What is annoying is your second last post which implies that you haven't read my previous posts where I have clearly spelled out that I am a pilot, not ATC, for whom I too have a great deal of respect.
What wound me up(by pprune standards anyway)was the implication that having sparse amounts of fuel for holding was the fault of your company,approved by the CAA. For the umpteenth time it is up to the PIC to load extra fuel when required, it is their responsibility in law to do so,pressure or not.
What is annoying is your second last post which implies that you haven't read my previous posts where I have clearly spelled out that I am a pilot, not ATC, for whom I too have a great deal of respect.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point you seem to be missing Flanker is that on a 13 hour flight you having sparse fuel for holding is not necessarily the fault of the PIC either. When planning a flight 15 hours ahead you take as much fuel as you think you need, and maybe even a little extra for comfort. But the point is, the calculation for required fuel is not done on the back of a fag packet, its done by a computer calculating the performance of the specific aircraft based on forecast temperatures and winds aloft that are 6 hours old, and might be 21 hours old by the time you arrive at LHR. Add in quite accurate statistical data for holding and delays into LHR plus the other legal requirements and you have a fuel figure. You might want ot ake more than that, but it needs to be justified. You can turn around and say I want X tonnes more because of LVPs at LHR but you can't really keep saying I want 2X tonnes more and screw the company because I say so. Nobody is pressurised to take less fuel than they need, but they are asked to take only as much fuel as they think they need. Then when you find the winds are stronger, the temperatures higher, the routing less direct and the holding lengthier you may find that your best, most educated assessment wasn't enough this time. Which takes us back to the position of Antiguas initial post.
Edited to say having reread this post it may still leave me open to the accusation that "If you think the adverse events may occur then you should be loading more fuel". Perhaps, but then I don't walk around watching out for meteroites that might hit me. One has to make a professional judgement which is only as good as the information you base it on. Its not precise, its hit and miss and its the rare miss occasions were talking about here, not the regular hits.
Edited to say having reread this post it may still leave me open to the accusation that "If you think the adverse events may occur then you should be loading more fuel". Perhaps, but then I don't walk around watching out for meteroites that might hit me. One has to make a professional judgement which is only as good as the information you base it on. Its not precise, its hit and miss and its the rare miss occasions were talking about here, not the regular hits.
Last edited by Carnage Matey!; 25th Apr 2002 at 13:54.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flanker...
Apologies for that mistaken identity - I have not been following the names too closely, more what was written...
However, I will in turn ask you to read my posts again:
<<was the implication that having sparse amounts of fuel for holding was the fault of your company>>
When did I ever say we (BA) have "sparse" amounts of holding fuel?? I have said quite a few times, this is not an issue of planned fuel... it is entirely about what happens when the plan fails (which is very rare, as I said), for whatever reason... which is exactly the situation Antigua found himself in. I have read that AIC a few times throughout this debate, and I cannot see it disagrees with BA's present policy at all. Indeed, a recent campaign by certain individuals within BA, resulted in a "change" to our policy so became compliant with the AIC...
So my (TIC) reply to your
<<For the umpteenth time it is up to the PIC to load extra fuel when required>>
is
"For the umpteenth time the PIC has planned fuel legally and sensibly, but now finds, in the hold, that the quantity is decreasing (well) below the plan, and what he should do in terms of advising ATC..."
NoD
Apologies for that mistaken identity - I have not been following the names too closely, more what was written...
However, I will in turn ask you to read my posts again:
<<was the implication that having sparse amounts of fuel for holding was the fault of your company>>
When did I ever say we (BA) have "sparse" amounts of holding fuel?? I have said quite a few times, this is not an issue of planned fuel... it is entirely about what happens when the plan fails (which is very rare, as I said), for whatever reason... which is exactly the situation Antigua found himself in. I have read that AIC a few times throughout this debate, and I cannot see it disagrees with BA's present policy at all. Indeed, a recent campaign by certain individuals within BA, resulted in a "change" to our policy so became compliant with the AIC...
So my (TIC) reply to your
<<For the umpteenth time it is up to the PIC to load extra fuel when required>>
is
"For the umpteenth time the PIC has planned fuel legally and sensibly, but now finds, in the hold, that the quantity is decreasing (well) below the plan, and what he should do in terms of advising ATC..."
NoD
"PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN"
It is not a matter of what ATC want you to say, it is what YOU, as an aircraft commander, taking into account company policy and all relevant legislation, MUST say, if in YOUR judgement the situation warrants.
Then, and only then, can UK ATC give you the priority that you need.
It is not a matter of what ATC want you to say, it is what YOU, as an aircraft commander, taking into account company policy and all relevant legislation, MUST say, if in YOUR judgement the situation warrants.
Then, and only then, can UK ATC give you the priority that you need.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel and Carnage
Please read some things Antigua wrote on this thread.
This isn't a futuristic fantasy,this is here and now, and almost certainly happened today.
We are frequently weight limited out of there and cannot carry anything other than minimum LEGAL fuel.
That's worst case, BUT it is legal, it is increasingly normal, AND IT IS WHAT OUR COMPANIES WANT US TO DO!
We have a new fuel flight planning system in BA that is even meaner than the old one with trip fuel.LGW is the alternate, but if you are banished to a hold that option usually disappears after one or two turns.
Nigel
You didn't say BA carry sparse amounts of holding fuel,but your colleague above seems to be doing so. I'm only going on what has been written here, nothing else.I just don't think his actions are sensible from how he is describing the situation.
Nigel and Carnage
Of course nobody carries extra fuel for no good reason - BUT,
given the above and the thoughts of others on this thread it seems to me that a bit more, more often,is entirely justified!
Regards
Please read some things Antigua wrote on this thread.
This isn't a futuristic fantasy,this is here and now, and almost certainly happened today.
We are frequently weight limited out of there and cannot carry anything other than minimum LEGAL fuel.
That's worst case, BUT it is legal, it is increasingly normal, AND IT IS WHAT OUR COMPANIES WANT US TO DO!
We have a new fuel flight planning system in BA that is even meaner than the old one with trip fuel.LGW is the alternate, but if you are banished to a hold that option usually disappears after one or two turns.
Nigel
You didn't say BA carry sparse amounts of holding fuel,but your colleague above seems to be doing so. I'm only going on what has been written here, nothing else.I just don't think his actions are sensible from how he is describing the situation.
Nigel and Carnage
Of course nobody carries extra fuel for no good reason - BUT,
given the above and the thoughts of others on this thread it seems to me that a bit more, more often,is entirely justified!
Regards
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
egffztzx,
Thank you - about time someone said that.
Sorry boys (and girls) but a lot of you are missing the point. I may not work in the London TMA but we all have our moments and if a streetwise captain can give me a heads up about a potential problem that allows me to plan ahead for the eventuality, I am a very happy bunny indeed. No such thing as too much information.
Where I work, an extra mile or so is no great problem and I will happily oblige, especially if it avoids a) a go-aroud (much more work for me) or b) a big pile of smoking aluminium.
I know that many of you work under greater pressure and workload than me and don't want to apear flippant but the manual says (or at least used to) safe, orderly and last and (imho) least, expeditious. (Better than the safe, efficient and, wait for it......friendly that we have here!)
Antigua, the guys at London TMA/ may well be too busy for the odd special request but don't let that put you off asking the rest of us.
Thank you - about time someone said that.
Sorry boys (and girls) but a lot of you are missing the point. I may not work in the London TMA but we all have our moments and if a streetwise captain can give me a heads up about a potential problem that allows me to plan ahead for the eventuality, I am a very happy bunny indeed. No such thing as too much information.
Where I work, an extra mile or so is no great problem and I will happily oblige, especially if it avoids a) a go-aroud (much more work for me) or b) a big pile of smoking aluminium.
I know that many of you work under greater pressure and workload than me and don't want to apear flippant but the manual says (or at least used to) safe, orderly and last and (imho) least, expeditious. (Better than the safe, efficient and, wait for it......friendly that we have here!)
Antigua, the guys at London TMA/ may well be too busy for the odd special request but don't let that put you off asking the rest of us.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You didn't say BA carry sparse amounts of holding fuel,but your colleague above seems to be doing so. I'm only going on what has been written here, nothing else.I just don't think his actions are sensible from how he is describing the situation.
_______________________________________________
Flanker, REALLY
Now really you are being perverse. SPARSE?
In relation to the original example of SIN - LHR in winter (stronger winds from the West for 13 hrs), what we do is reduce the ZFW by shedding staff pax/freight/fare paying pax, in that order, until the AUW = RTOW with (note, WITH) the original flt plan fuel offered by the gnomic computer in ZRH or GVA or wherever the damn thing is. All our plans have en-route alternates, so there is no other descision to make. We CANNOT and most certainly DO NOT further reduce the fuel load by shaving ANYTHING off the normal holding reserves.
With the Roller (Trent - Core) powered 400, this is also usually
Max Structural Wt. (We can still use derated T/O power, but that's another arguement if you want it.)
In other words ...... just what you do in your Fluff-Jet, but with bigger numbers.
Please don't accuse me of carrying SPARSE fuel. Or if you do, shout at the CAA, it's their set of rules.
A lot can happen to an ultra long range flight before we creep onto H109, or whatever they call the edge of your known world. It's FINISHING the flight with sparse fuel that concerns me.
ANTIGUA
_______________________________________________
Flanker, REALLY
Now really you are being perverse. SPARSE?
In relation to the original example of SIN - LHR in winter (stronger winds from the West for 13 hrs), what we do is reduce the ZFW by shedding staff pax/freight/fare paying pax, in that order, until the AUW = RTOW with (note, WITH) the original flt plan fuel offered by the gnomic computer in ZRH or GVA or wherever the damn thing is. All our plans have en-route alternates, so there is no other descision to make. We CANNOT and most certainly DO NOT further reduce the fuel load by shaving ANYTHING off the normal holding reserves.
With the Roller (Trent - Core) powered 400, this is also usually
Max Structural Wt. (We can still use derated T/O power, but that's another arguement if you want it.)
In other words ...... just what you do in your Fluff-Jet, but with bigger numbers.
Please don't accuse me of carrying SPARSE fuel. Or if you do, shout at the CAA, it's their set of rules.
A lot can happen to an ultra long range flight before we creep onto H109, or whatever they call the edge of your known world. It's FINISHING the flight with sparse fuel that concerns me.
ANTIGUA
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ISZ - not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, did you get your fuel bonus this month then?
A mile? couldn't you claw that back from an inventive interpretation of speed control?
However, if it were me, I'd rather you asked, in fact maybe I'd rather you left some pax behind as well.
A mile? couldn't you claw that back from an inventive interpretation of speed control?
However, if it were me, I'd rather you asked, in fact maybe I'd rather you left some pax behind as well.
Last edited by Cuddles; 25th Apr 2002 at 21:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Cuddles,
___________________________________________
A mile? couldn't you claw that back from an inventive interpretation of speed control?
___________________________________________
WHAT? And upset my mates in the Director Suite (sounds like something from IKEA)?
ACTUALLY we take great pride in doing CDAs AND flying the exact speed you ask for. We don't always get it totally right, but we try.
So 'Satan - get thee behind me'.
Anyway, I've tried it. With a VRef of 152 kts (or thereabouts), + the standard 5kts on an unblowy day, that only gives you 3kts to play with on the '160 to 4' bit.
Besides, you probably have a speed camera attached to the scope!
ANTIGUA
___________________________________________
A mile? couldn't you claw that back from an inventive interpretation of speed control?
___________________________________________
WHAT? And upset my mates in the Director Suite (sounds like something from IKEA)?
ACTUALLY we take great pride in doing CDAs AND flying the exact speed you ask for. We don't always get it totally right, but we try.
So 'Satan - get thee behind me'.
Anyway, I've tried it. With a VRef of 152 kts (or thereabouts), + the standard 5kts on an unblowy day, that only gives you 3kts to play with on the '160 to 4' bit.
Besides, you probably have a speed camera attached to the scope!
ANTIGUA
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua
I reckon an example ofperverse would be trying to deny the clear message in your early posts, or were they dramatised for effect?
OK fair enough, lets not use sparse, lets say bare-minimum instead. So what seems to be happening a fair bit is that you end up taking off with bare minimum legal fuel and while you're having your nap ATC won't let you climb anywhere near optimum,you keep getting levels below those planned,and those pesky winds seem stronger than expected,then blow me, Maastricht want you at FL 250 two hundred miles out.
GEEZ that never happens!
Now fine,s*it happens,but if it keeps happening there ought to be a message there. So you end up holding at LHR without a lot of fuel/options. And it's you who said it is 'increasingly normal' and 'almost certainly happened today', did you not, or am I being perverse again?
A hundred pilots will come up with at least a hundred ideas about fuel, but to me at least, leaving yourself on approach without..... 'necessarily enough fuel to do a go- around AT ALL, even a truncated one' is hopefully a not even once in a lifetime occurrence.
Why not bid for the 777, maybe it can do the job? And by the way could you send me a postcard from somewhere windswept and interesting,you long haul sky god?
I reckon an example ofperverse would be trying to deny the clear message in your early posts, or were they dramatised for effect?
OK fair enough, lets not use sparse, lets say bare-minimum instead. So what seems to be happening a fair bit is that you end up taking off with bare minimum legal fuel and while you're having your nap ATC won't let you climb anywhere near optimum,you keep getting levels below those planned,and those pesky winds seem stronger than expected,then blow me, Maastricht want you at FL 250 two hundred miles out.
GEEZ that never happens!
Now fine,s*it happens,but if it keeps happening there ought to be a message there. So you end up holding at LHR without a lot of fuel/options. And it's you who said it is 'increasingly normal' and 'almost certainly happened today', did you not, or am I being perverse again?
A hundred pilots will come up with at least a hundred ideas about fuel, but to me at least, leaving yourself on approach without..... 'necessarily enough fuel to do a go- around AT ALL, even a truncated one' is hopefully a not even once in a lifetime occurrence.
Why not bid for the 777, maybe it can do the job? And by the way could you send me a postcard from somewhere windswept and interesting,you long haul sky god?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally have no objection to a pilot chattily telling me he has a fuel problem... had one yesterday: "We can only hold until XXX (his EAT minus about 1 minute)". Usual stuff which we hear every day of our working lives.. However, guys, much as I don't actually MIND you saying it you should know that officially I'm not supposed to act upon it unless you declare an emergency.. Officially I cannot change the landing sequence to accommodate you just because you casually mention that you're tight on fuel. Nevertheless, if some of you saw the gyrations we go through to help you jump the queue sometimes you might be amazed - especially those of you who fly a certain long extremely pointed object.. Maybe we should interpret the rules absolutely to the letter... get Stansted, Birmingham, Gatwick, etc., full up with Heathrow diversions every day and see if the message gets home...?
Lastly, I really feel for the long-haul guys but the ones that get up my nose are those who come from Manchester and tell me they can only hold for only 5 minutes (happened very recently)...
Lastly, I really feel for the long-haul guys but the ones that get up my nose are those who come from Manchester and tell me they can only hold for only 5 minutes (happened very recently)...
Last edited by HEATHROW DIRECTOR; 26th Apr 2002 at 07:32.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Maybe we should interpret the rules absolutely to the letter... get Stansted, Birmingham, Gatwick, etc., full up with Heathrow diversions every day and see if the message gets home...?>>
Might be one of the best suggestions so far made!
Might be one of the best suggestions so far made!
Question for Antigua please:-
Going right back to your very first post, which spawned this lively and very enlightening discussion - Did you in fact get the extra mile spacing that you asked for, or were you still spaced 2.5nm behind the preceeding aircraft?
I appreciate that was but one detail in the issues you raise, and appologise if I've missed the answer elsewhere. No hidden agenda, I'd just like to know.
"speed camera attached to the scope" ...... hmm, now that's an idea!!
Going right back to your very first post, which spawned this lively and very enlightening discussion - Did you in fact get the extra mile spacing that you asked for, or were you still spaced 2.5nm behind the preceeding aircraft?
I appreciate that was but one detail in the issues you raise, and appologise if I've missed the answer elsewhere. No hidden agenda, I'd just like to know.
"speed camera attached to the scope" ...... hmm, now that's an idea!!
Last edited by spekesoftly; 26th Apr 2002 at 09:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLANKER
________________________________________
And by the way could you send me a postcard from somewhere windswept and interesting,you long haul sky god?
_________________________________________
Certainly, how about Chicago in Feb?
OK ...... I give up. You are the one that likes playing with words. Can you come up with a few that I can throw at my Director Flight Operations (DFO), who thinks he's Group Operations Director (GOD) when he asks me why I dived into HEL because I was a BIT worried about what might happen in two hours time when I arrived in the (sunny) London Area?
Address the letter c/o my bunk. When the nice young lady brings me my morning tea and my (ironed) copy of the Torygraph, I will read it with interest.
Kind Regards
ANTIGUA
________________________________________
And by the way could you send me a postcard from somewhere windswept and interesting,you long haul sky god?
_________________________________________
Certainly, how about Chicago in Feb?
OK ...... I give up. You are the one that likes playing with words. Can you come up with a few that I can throw at my Director Flight Operations (DFO), who thinks he's Group Operations Director (GOD) when he asks me why I dived into HEL because I was a BIT worried about what might happen in two hours time when I arrived in the (sunny) London Area?
Address the letter c/o my bunk. When the nice young lady brings me my morning tea and my (ironed) copy of the Torygraph, I will read it with interest.
Kind Regards
ANTIGUA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPEKESOFTLY
Still just another number
posted 26th April 2002 08:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for Antigua please:-
Going right back to your very first post, which spawned this lively and very enlightening discussion - Did you in fact get the extra mile spacing that you asked for, or were you still spaced 2.5nm behind the preceeding aircraft?
_______________________________________
Reminds me of a joke. "Conductor!...... Is this bus going to Speke?"
" What do you think I am, gerl, a ventriloquist?"
_______________________________________
Mind you Speke's probably been nicked by now.
ANSWER : YES, thanks to the professionalism of the team at LATCC that day. Not that they're talking to me any more. Except via their lawyers. If they had left it at 2.5, I may have filed an ASR myself .
Seriously though folks....... it needs to be addressed by our bosses committees and their bosses committees. I don't know about the NATS side, but ours hide behind a risk-assessment model in these instances, which has been approved by the CAA.
This is what has happened since 'The Herald of Free Enterprise'.
Shifts the blame to the blokes at the sharp end when it all turns to sh 1 t. With a bit of luck they'll be dead by then, (Chinook/Scottish granite).
Or am I being cynical again?
ATB
ANTIGUA
Still just another number
posted 26th April 2002 08:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for Antigua please:-
Going right back to your very first post, which spawned this lively and very enlightening discussion - Did you in fact get the extra mile spacing that you asked for, or were you still spaced 2.5nm behind the preceeding aircraft?
_______________________________________
Reminds me of a joke. "Conductor!...... Is this bus going to Speke?"
" What do you think I am, gerl, a ventriloquist?"
_______________________________________
Mind you Speke's probably been nicked by now.
ANSWER : YES, thanks to the professionalism of the team at LATCC that day. Not that they're talking to me any more. Except via their lawyers. If they had left it at 2.5, I may have filed an ASR myself .
Seriously though folks....... it needs to be addressed by our bosses committees and their bosses committees. I don't know about the NATS side, but ours hide behind a risk-assessment model in these instances, which has been approved by the CAA.
This is what has happened since 'The Herald of Free Enterprise'.
Shifts the blame to the blokes at the sharp end when it all turns to sh 1 t. With a bit of luck they'll be dead by then, (Chinook/Scottish granite).
Or am I being cynical again?
ATB
ANTIGUA
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: manchester
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua
I don`t think tech stopping for fuel is the issue here, if you thought there would be a delay at LHR then more fuel loaded would have being a good idea (aic 131). If the r/mtom was restricting then maybe offloading frieght/bags/or even bars(as I have done in the past) may help. But as has been said we do not have a crystal ball so it is possible to get into the same fuel situation as you had and I`m sure we all have been there.
What I do find strange is the statment that once in the hold at LHR we have no fuel to divert (does this happen often?). I know that since the introduction of JAR we can in exceptional circumstances land with final reserve fuel (30 mins) when an approach is imminent etc, etc (ASR required in our company).
I would have thought with the variables at LHR it would be possibly not a good idea to excersise this option and to divert when down to no less than 30 min plus diversion fuel.
Having said that I can also say that hindsight and a perfect world are wonderful thing`s.
A very confused Fish!
I don`t think tech stopping for fuel is the issue here, if you thought there would be a delay at LHR then more fuel loaded would have being a good idea (aic 131). If the r/mtom was restricting then maybe offloading frieght/bags/or even bars(as I have done in the past) may help. But as has been said we do not have a crystal ball so it is possible to get into the same fuel situation as you had and I`m sure we all have been there.
What I do find strange is the statment that once in the hold at LHR we have no fuel to divert (does this happen often?). I know that since the introduction of JAR we can in exceptional circumstances land with final reserve fuel (30 mins) when an approach is imminent etc, etc (ASR required in our company).
I would have thought with the variables at LHR it would be possibly not a good idea to excersise this option and to divert when down to no less than 30 min plus diversion fuel.
Having said that I can also say that hindsight and a perfect world are wonderful thing`s.
A very confused Fish!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning Antigua
Whats with the ?
The long haul sky god bit was just banter at your suggestion that my known world ends at Larnaca.
Anyway all the best and keep up those Balpa subs
TTFN
Whats with the
?The long haul sky god bit was just banter at your suggestion that my known world ends at Larnaca.
Anyway all the best and keep up those Balpa subs
TTFN