MOR'ed..... OUCH!
I seem to remember from a dim and distant life in the RAF, that we used to politley ask for "Fuel priority" if we were getting a bit short of gas.
Didnt use it very often as it was not the done thing, old boy! But as our normal landing fuel was 10 mins to tanks dry, when it was used it did indeed 'part the waves' - and cost the perpetrator an awful lot of beer at Happy Hour!
Didnt use it very often as it was not the done thing, old boy! But as our normal landing fuel was 10 mins to tanks dry, when it was used it did indeed 'part the waves' - and cost the perpetrator an awful lot of beer at Happy Hour!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a can of worms. 
The upshot of all of this is that someone got MOR'ed because we ATCOs don't really know what the legal fuel requirements are. Maybe we should? However, I would add that if I had been INT FIN I may have done the same because I consider an aircraft not being able fly a go around due to low fuel to be an UNACCEPTABLE occurance. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME RIGHT. This does make me cautious and concerned that maybe this is an issue that sholud be addressed. As someone sage earlier pointed out, one ahead blows a tyre, you could have all the spacing in the world but if you ain't got the fuel to go around once...
I know all the controllers on here harp on about fam flights (cos everyone's got a mate in FACT!!) but surely the understanding of pilots point of view and ours would be served greatly by sitting down face to face over a Club meal (or a pint) and discussing it. We're all working for the common aim (aren't we) and this is something that we could settle by talking to each other.
That said, maybe our old chum Steve V from the US of A has got a point when he mentioned the low fuel warning. I know someone abused the issue at EGLL, but in this day and age of cutting back on fuel and accountability in the event of an emergency (for us too), couldn't this help even if a few kn*bheads out there try and get a freebie?
P7
The upshot of all of this is that someone got MOR'ed because we ATCOs don't really know what the legal fuel requirements are. Maybe we should? However, I would add that if I had been INT FIN I may have done the same because I consider an aircraft not being able fly a go around due to low fuel to be an UNACCEPTABLE occurance. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME RIGHT. This does make me cautious and concerned that maybe this is an issue that sholud be addressed. As someone sage earlier pointed out, one ahead blows a tyre, you could have all the spacing in the world but if you ain't got the fuel to go around once...
I know all the controllers on here harp on about fam flights (cos everyone's got a mate in FACT!!) but surely the understanding of pilots point of view and ours would be served greatly by sitting down face to face over a Club meal (or a pint) and discussing it. We're all working for the common aim (aren't we) and this is something that we could settle by talking to each other.
That said, maybe our old chum Steve V from the US of A has got a point when he mentioned the low fuel warning. I know someone abused the issue at EGLL, but in this day and age of cutting back on fuel and accountability in the event of an emergency (for us too), couldn't this help even if a few kn*bheads out there try and get a freebie?
P7
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I consider an aircraft not being able fly a go around due to low fuel to be an UNACCEPTABLE occurance.
Unless he has already declared MAYDAY, the Commander is supposed to have at least final res. fuel upon landing (30' flight time at 1500ft), thus being able to do at least one go around.
If he fails to do so, he not only deserves a MOR, but disciplinary action and retraining, even if he is a 744 captain.
LEM
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freebies?
Point Seven, I don't think that a few kn**bheads are trying to get freebies. It is genuinely useful to undertake a familiarisation flight occassionally. Moreover there was a rather bad airmiss a few years ago and the AAIB identified a lack of understanding or appreciation on the controller's part of the performance characteristics of the aircraft involved..AAIB 4/98. In its submission to the board NATS recognised the value of familiarisation flights. Safety recommendation 4.2 of the report ,also referred to as Recommendation 98-36, directed ATS providers to ensure that controllers are familiar with the operating characteristics of the aircraft for which they are likely to be responsible.....etc. I respectfully suggest that fuel management is an integral part of the operating characteristic of a modern airliner. I cannot agree with your point of view that such flights are merely "freebies".////Kick the Tyres, had to chuckle a bit, I was at Pershore for a while and the Meteor with the Tornado Radar Nose used to take off for a 59 minute sortie with one hours fuel....his idea[ Blackbox callsign] of a fuel emergency was when he had to shut one down on the downwind leg in order to have enough juice to taxi back to the hangar!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
055166k
The freebies I was talking about were NOT fam flights but those who have abused low fuel calls in the past at EGLL to get a priority approach, when in fact they did not really need one and put everyone else back five miles. I happen to think that fam flights are completely integral to our understanding of your job and vice versa. It seems that penny pinching managers, ours certainly, do not. But that's another thread.
Sorry for not being clear.
P7
The freebies I was talking about were NOT fam flights but those who have abused low fuel calls in the past at EGLL to get a priority approach, when in fact they did not really need one and put everyone else back five miles. I happen to think that fam flights are completely integral to our understanding of your job and vice versa. It seems that penny pinching managers, ours certainly, do not. But that's another thread.
Sorry for not being clear.
P7
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I consider an aircraft not being able fly a go around due to low fuel to be an UNACCEPTABLE occurance
Just to clarify the situation as there seems to be considerable confusion over fuel states. The thread began with a pilot asking for a bit more spacing to avoid the possibility of a g/a, and the subsequent 40 mile track which would then put him in a 'low fuel' situation. He was NOT 'short of fuel'. BA SOPS require a PAN call if it is LIKELY that I will land below reserve fuel (that is 30 minutes to tanks empty) and a MAYDAY if I AM going to land as such. He was trying to reduce the chances of a MAYDAY, as he was obviously going to be below 'reserves' after a g/a and longish track to re-land.
It would be very rare for an a/c to have 'insufficient fuel for a g/a' but quite common at LHR for a g/a to place an a/c in a MAYDAY situation. All tickety-boo and above board and in accordance with...... drone drone drone. It is the way JAROPS is written now.
