|
Flanker, if you have a way of predicting holding at all the UK airports you listed 15 hours ahead then I'm sure lots of people would love to hear from you and may I please have next weeks lottery numbers! I suspect Antiguas post regarding no go-around at all may not be quite as he intended as in this situation I think the ASR from the P2 and the mandatory report from the engineers would reach him much quicker than an MOR.
Spitoon - my book estimates extra fuel burn at 4%/hr, thus over a 12hr flight you'll burn 48%of the extra fuel to carry it. Assuming you'd like about 4 tonnes spare at the start of the ILS, thats 8 tonnes extra you'd need to load in Singapore, which is about 80 passengers. Longhaulers make extensive use of reclearance, whereby they file to a nearer destination then refile onwards towards the intended destination as the fuel situation permits. However nobody can think of everything, the best laid plans etc etc and sometimes you may find yourself victim of excessive, unpredicted holding or you may turn out of the hold to be given a 40 mile final. Even with that extra 4 tonnes it may still not be enough. Sooner or later somebody is going to run short no matter how much extra fuel we carry. |
For those who asked, where else in the world do you do 2.5 miles on final..? Well we do it here in the US... Probably where they came up with it there <G>...
regards |
Thank you Scott I did not know that.
Flanker I know that the majority of us are not setting out to criticise LTMA controllers. The spacing on approach and general control is like poetry! What some of us are saying is that our company SOPs and your modus operandi are backing us all into a corner where it could all go horribly wrong. Interesting that we are hearing all about BAs CAA approved fuel policy on this thread, what is the policy in FR, Easy, BMI, Virgin, etc? |
M Mouse
Did you read my post(s)?I'm not ATC. Carnage Matey I assume you are only holding right down to minimum when the weather is good enough to allow it.It is extremely unlikely that extensive holding everywhere will be taking place in fair weather,wouldn't you say? |
Good debate... Getting some interesting reactions...!
I disagree with one thing that Antigua has been interpreted as saying (and so I may disagree with him) - the requirement to land with Reserve, does, IMHO, leave you with sufficient fuel to Go Around, Visual Circuit / TIGHT radar circuit, land before tanks dry i.e. without a call, the way I would play it always leaves the option for the Go Around. Having gone around, the situation is now "urgent" - the next landing must be made - hence the "Mayday". The PAN option defines another specific fuel state that got skipped here, but may be made where there is a little more fuel... As I said before, lets try and concentrate on "safety". Issuing a Mayday does not imply a dangerous situation in itself, its just a radio call. Its "grave & imminent.. threatens.. immediate assistance required..." i.e. I would expect ATC at this stage to keep a runway clear for you. The commercial fall out of this may get the policy changed, but I don't think it has (yet) occurred in recent times. Chances of this happening: 1. How often at LHR do we get to an approach where we land with reserves only, or a little more? Very rarely - the times I've "committed" to LHR (gone below fuel sufficient to divert) is probably ~5 in as many years of SH operation based there, in each case landing comfortably above reserve (I think only 1-2 of these would have required a PAN if we went around) 2. How often, of these rare occasions, require a Go Around? Very few... and if you do as Antigua did, still less because ATC were forewarned (if unhappy). As said elsewhere, very different from the certain other carrier regularly landing at LHR without fuel to do a Go Around and saying nothing... NB Our rules used to say that as we "committed" to LHR, consideration be given to informing ATC. I still do that - it gives an ATC an idea, well in advance, that fuel is not that fat, and more importantly, if others did it, lets ATC see the day building up where "everyone" has committed! What's more, when I make that call, ATC seem to understand what "committed means"... NoD |
Sorry Flanker my mistake. My post should have been addressed to Expeditedescent.
|
EZ Fuel Policy
Since someone asked, here's the EZ policy.
Min arrival fuel = Alternate fuel = the burn from G/A @ dest to alternate at an appropriate level Final Reserve Fuel = 30 mins hold fuel @ 1500' in icing (about 1200kg depending on type) Alt Fuel + Final Res Fuel = CMR (Company Min Reserve) If you're gonna land with less than Final Reserve (for whatever reason) it's a MAYDAY. Capt may go below CMR only IF satisfied that landing at dest is assured (defined as landing can take place within any FORECAST wx deterioration and plausible sngle failures of airborne or gnd equipment). Ergo, if held close to LGW/LTN on a 20 min - No Delay, it is permissible to go bleow CMR, if the Capt is satisfied that above is OK. (There is a whole page on landing with less than norm reserves and I've only given you a snippet). If you're gonna land with less than 1600kg and not yet established on Final Approach - PAN PAN. The PLOG, like any other, states the JAR min fuel required for the trip. The Capt may take what he likes as long as he can justify it if called upon to do so. I have NEVER YET been asked to justify my fuel load and, if it were to happen at EZ, it would be a discussion rather than a b0ll0cking - of that I have no doubt whatsoever. Needless to say the above assumes Cat1 or better. Rgds to all |
Sounds pretty much the same as BA but with slightly different names with the same restrictions on going below 'CMR'.
|
Nigel OD
Is acceptable in your SOP's to 'commit' to a destination with single runway? |
What is the difference between committing to a single runway at destination and diverting to a single runway?
|
Here we go again with this ‘committing’ thing. There is nothing in UK law that allows the commander of a UK registered aircraft to reduce fuel to such an extent that a go around would compromise the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. The over-riding restriction is that the commander must at all times ensure that the aircraft will land with at least final reserve remaining. I would suggest that for an aircraft with final reserve remaining on touchdown to commence a go around, you will barely have enough fuel for a visual circuit. 30 minutes holding at 1500’ is just that, not a full IFR missed approach and subsequent radar pattern, as you are required to plan (JAROPS AMC-OPS 1.255). To plan such a tight margin in a public transport aircraft in VMC would be bad enough, to routinely plan this IFR is foolhardy.
The CAA have officially promulgated the extent to which holding should be expected at LHR in AIC 36/1996. It appears that Big Airways don’t feel themselves bound by the ‘information for guidance and necessary action’that is contained therein. I would be interested to know what other items of UK legislative material that they also find themselves exempt from. You are required to have knowledge of all such AIC’s and are expected to operate with them in mind. Perhaps we will have to institute NOTAMed holding fuel requirements for the UK like they do in Oz. What does Big do down there? I feel that like many large organisations, the interpretation of relevant legislation has been allowed to be overcome by introspective judgements and a corporate arrogance that is prepared to exclude all versions of the truth but its own. Culture it may be, safe it is not. Nigel holds a UK licence issued by the CAA, it has conditions and responsibilities attached. The MOR process is the last line of defence to allow the Authority to review an operators’ procedures to ensure safe compliance with current legislation. Perhaps the more MOR’s that are filed, the safer our skies will become. |
What does the AIC REALLY mean then?
Assuming that almost everyone agrees that the min planned arrival fuel is final reserve fuel plus div fuel - what does this AIC actually recommend that we do?
1. Should we add an EXTRA 20 mins holding fuel for the TMA? OR 2. Should we, as seems to be commonplace, say that we already have this 20 mins fuel as an integral part of our current plan BUT (and it's a big BUT) if any part of it is used, we can no longer divert and land with more than final reserve (ie we must commit)? Now the CAA already know that we are arriving back with the statutory reserves so, one must conclude from that, they are referring to an EXTRA 20 mins fuel for routine ops into the London TMA. If this is not the case - What was the point of the AIC? |
Ladies & Gents
I have sat back and watched this debate develop. It’s much better than I had dared hope. Thank you all for your views. Even the ones that I REALLY appear to have upset. If I have, then I apologise. I wanted to kick it off in a slightly contentious manner so as to ‘encourage’ your participation. Well that worked! >>>>>Spitoon 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. <<<<< Spitoon, I’m not promoting any such thing. I’m merely saying that this is the company policy that I am stuck with. I don’t enthusiastically chop back the fuel at the planning stage to prove that it can be done. Just the opposite. Ask any of the co-pilots that fly with me. OK, you can’t, but if you knew me personally, well….. shall we say you’d be convinced. Exaggerating a point to make it maybe. I plead guilty to that. What I was trying to say is that the fuel policy we have does not sit well with the ATC environment, phraseology, et al, as exists in the London Area, WHEN, for whatever reason, we find ourselves in a hold, perfectly properly committed to an airport, and getting low on fuel because things haven’t gone swimmingly over the past thirteen hours. Doesn’t always happen, we don’t want it to happen, we don’t plan for it to happen, but when it does happen I would like pretty please to have a form of words somewhere between strained silence and a mayday. And not to be criticised for using it. Simple as that. >>>>>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?<<<<< Not ‘even’ Antigua… ‘especially’ Antigua takes LOTS. But we weren’t talking about those conditions, were we? >>>>>Flanker 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!<<<<< Well I certainly seem to have got up your nose Flanker. I said none of that in the way you put it. Let me try again. Do you think I would have started this if it didn’t worry me? The whole point of the posting is that it does worry me. And if I didn’t care……? See above. I know it’s not safe when we get 2.5mile spacing whether we like it or not. >>>>>Expeditedescent 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.<<<<< May I call you ED? Now this posting DOES worry me a lot. I am not worried by the implied threat either. I am hoping that we can put this down to the limitations of this medium ( no body language, facial expression, etc…). Some have said that it would have been nice to know that an MOR had been filed, at least. Or a ‘please ring the watch supervisor on ext….’ would have been responded to, believe me. I’m sure he was very busy, so no problem. Please read my original posting again. I made no blanket accusation about bad spacing. I think you do a marvellous job. I do not know how you do it. You are consistently the best in the world in very trying circumstances. But you must admit you are human, and occasional mistakes will be made. I can count on the fingers of one finger how many times it has happened to me in the last five years. But it has happened. Once. And once the preceding a/c just didn’t clear. One of ours too… double whammy. Sods law says one of these will happen to me on the odd occasion when fuel is tight. Chaps/chapesses, IT ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE. >>>>>The majority of goarounds are caused by late runway vacations.<<<< IT DOESN’T MATTER! If we didn’t have only 2.5 miles then it probably wouldn’t happen then. Nobody willingly ‘lets’ the fuel get very low. If you divert, you use the diversion fuel and a bit more moving to put yourself in the same position at a different airport, only with less fuel. I personally don’t have a clue how many track miles you are going to make me do going there, either. Just that piece of the unknown may cause a mayday even before reaching another airport. At least you know where you are holding at BNN for LHR. ED, I meant no disrespect to anybody, or any group of controllers. But PLEASE accept that we all make mistakes. I do. Lots. Getting stuffy about it, sir, is in my humble opinion, dangerous in itself. We had that knocked out of us on countless CRM courses. Lets leave it at that. Look in my profile and get the chap involved to e-mail me privately, and I’ll apologise in person, if you like. Like my old flying instructor used to say ‘smack him in the teeth and buy him a bucket of beer’. One thing IS clear to me. People DO care about this topic, and DO want to improve it. As far as I am concerned,…… job done. Thanks Everybody ‘You’ve all done very well’ ANTIGUA M.MouseStill just another number posted 23rd April 2002 20:13 What is the difference between committing to a single runway at destination and diverting to a single runway? About 6 tonnes of fuel,usually MM! :confused: :confused: |
No Sig...
<<Is acceptable in your SOP's to 'commit' to a destination with single runway?>> Yes - but at a later stage i.e. EAT or delay known. However, I think you'll find most Nigel's (indeed most pilots I am sure!) would get "cold feet" around here. Committing to LHR, with 2 (and a 3rd if dire situation, whether prepped or not) runways is one thing, a single runway airfield with anyone ahead brings a different outlook. <<The CAA have officially promulgated the extent to which holding should be expected at LHR in AIC 36/1996>> Yes - but this applies to the planned fuel. We are NOT talking about this! We are dicsussing what one does as the fuel runs out, for whatever reason... Unexpected headwinds, extensive holding. As said previously, if you have the crystal ball that states how long holding at LHR will be in 20 mins time, let alone 15 hours, please could you lend it to us... In addition to those telling "Big Airways" to call the low fuel state earlier. Please read the AIC: "A radio call prefixed by MAYDAY ... PAN .... should only make call when ... in danger .... not because the fuel state has fallen below the amount needed to comply with formula given above. So, in addition to bearing in mind safety v commercial, can we also bear in mind between "planning fuel" we depart with, and what we do as it runs down below the planned fuel I see the EZY fuel policy is very similar... i.e. no PAN or MAYDAY until likely / will land below reserves, and can commit... NoD |
Capt H P
<<as you are required to plan JAROPS AMC-OPS 1.255. >> Out of interest, please could you let us know: 1. Which airline (or if sensitive, nationality, and type of airline / flying). 2. What your company fuel policy on these areas is... 3. Does it comply with JAROPS xxx above? Lets not get personal - lets all learn. If Big Airways policy breaks certain rules / laws, lets hear it, and we'll put it to them.... NoD |
Hello Antigua
Actually it was Nigel on Draft that wound me up by going on about following company policy and 'Don't blame Antigua'.Sorry mate,but I did count all those zero's and multiplied by 57 and you're right, it is a big responsibility - yours! And it was you who wrote.Quote: 'Knowing,from experience,what is going to happen next.Which is why,when I leave the hold with just enough fuel to make a safe landing,I know that is safe.' I have some experience too and while it points me in the general direction, I don't knowthat the one ahead is going to vacate! 2.5 mile spacing, so what - if you've got fuel! Anyway back to the point,I don't disagree with you giving the controller a 'heads up' on the situation,its practical if not strictly 'correct', and I apologise for suggesting you don't care as I'm sure you do.I have been reacting more to what you wrote about how tight the fuel situation can get and how this happens. Actually I can't believe things get that tight very often because as has been said it should be flagged up by more than one method.If you are not exaggerating then its up to you guys to do something about it.As for the hard commercial world,I would wager I have more varied experience of it than you do, but I have learned to say 'no, thank you' when I need to. |
Thank you Nigel, but my employer and my identity are not germane to this debate.
What is important is that we get a clear idea of what the Authority is requiring of commanders who wish to operate into LHR and other major airfields in the UK. I will reiterate that the CAA has published its intended interpretation of AIC 36 in the Special Objective Check, and that is that you must expect 20 minutes holding when you arrive at these airports. That means you must add that fuel to your expected burn. If you are arriving in the kind of weather that the UK has been blessed with these last weeks then it may well be that your alternate fuel is not required and could usefully be substituted for ‘holding fuel’. If the weather is not suitable for dispensing with an alternate (JAROPS Part D 1.295 refers), then you must take this holding fuel IN ADDITION to your planned fuel. If during your approach phase the delay has exceeded the promulgated 20 minutes, you have the option of continuing to wait for an approach subject to the overriding responsibility of the commander to land with final reserve fuel. If you reach a fuel state such that after an approach you will have insufficient fuel to meet that requirement you MUST declare a PAN. Here is the relevant document. AIC 131/1999 3 Actions to be taken when an immediate landing appears necessary 3.1 After having completed essential emergency or abnormal checklists, briefing the crew and preparing the flight deck and cabin areas for landing will be amongst the foremost priorities. Quite possibly the first request the crew will make of the air traffic service provider will be to adjust the aircraft’s heading towards the airfield where they now wish to land. Flight crew can expect ATC to assist, but only when a formal emergency has been declared and the commander’s intentions have been made known. Personally I would be considering this course of action when I’m down to one approach and one missed approach and radar circuit. My PAN call would follow the go-around. I’m sure that Nigel is familiar with the frequency of go-arounds at LHR, one ATC mate says about two a day is an average. Do you feel lucky? In my experience, LHR is the one of the only airfields that I visit when holding is a regular and expected occurrence. It is one of the only airfield where I enter the FMC hold as a matter of course. I can expect to hold on about three in four occasions. So would you:
So why would you arrive at the World’s busiest international airport, in one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, when you know you’ll probably have to hold, when the Authority have officially informed you that you may have to hold, with no holding fuel? It’s just not sensible. It’s not good airmanship. |
Maybe I've missed something among all the chatter, but as a very experienced Heathrow Radar Director can I say to our crew friends that we don't do tight spacing for fun - it's damnably hard work. Just about all the ATC procedures we follow are agree by, if not demanded by, the AIRLINES. 2.5nm spacing can get very fraught (I'll not say more on here because one doesn't know who might be reading) but we only do it because the airlines apparently want it. If we take life easy and the delays extend who starts whingeing? Not us - the AIRLINES. You pilot chappies who don't like the procedures ought to be gently wringing your Flight Managers by the throats, not complaining - however politely - on here. There ain't much us coalface workers can do about it; we've got our feet on terra firma.
Lastly, anyone who plans fuel believing that they can use 27L as an "alternate" when 27R is the landing runway *(and vv) is... how can I put this politely..... barking mad!! The departure runway is frequently not available for landing due to WIP (big crane in the undershoot for example) or maybe the ILS is on maintenance, etc, etc. Anyone agree that the fun has gone out of this game?? |
Flanker
<<Actually it was Nigel on Draft that wound me up by going on about following company policy and 'Don't blame Antigua'>> Sorry to 'wind you up'. What exactly did I say to cause this? Capt H Peacock <<Thank you Nigel, but my employer and my identity are not germane to this debate. >> I never said it was - I was just asking what areas you flew in, you not having said it on this thread. You have now added <<In my experience, LHR... >> which is fine - there are plenty on these forums who do not know what they are talking about... <<So why would you arrive at the World’s busiest international airport, ... with no holding fuel? >> I NEVER said I would. May I ask 2 things, before bowing out: 1. We are NOT talking about taking LITTLE fuel at the planning stage. We ARE talking about what to do as it runs low... 95%+ of the time the "plan" will work, holding will not be horrendous, and we will land, even after 10-20 mins holding, with ample fuel to go around, divert etc. Once in a blue moon (and that will occur from time to time given the number of movements at LHR), someone will arrive at LHR having used significantly more fuel than expected en route, and now find extensive delays. We are discussing what to do now... 2. Myself, and other 'Nigels', have made very clear here what BA Fuel Policy is. I'm not saying I totally agree with it, and as a consequence, when its my shout, I'll take 'extra' because commonsense / A'Ship dictate. What we're are not getting as feedback is: i) Where BA Fuel Policy contradicts any law / rule / AIC etc. ii) Commonsense alterations to BA Fuel Policy from ATC to help everyone out. This debate, when it avoids getting personal, is a good learning curve for everyone. Whenever we used to take ATCOs on the Flt Deck, they were always amazed at the BA Fuel Policy (which seems common to most UK operators). It is only be debating here the message might get across, and then communication (if necessary via MOR) might get a better policy implemented across the board. So, Flanker and Heathrow Director, may I reiterate: 1. When do you want us to call PAN? 2. When do you want us to call MAYDAY? 3. What Fuel should we have (in terms of Go Arounds, diversion capabilities) as a minimum on landing before advising you of "a problem"? NoD |
NigelonDraft:
If I can introduce a flippant remark to this extemely interesting debate: 1 : Hardly ever 2 : Never 3 : Loads |
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 |
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.:) |
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. |
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 |
"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. |
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 |
Manual of Air Traffic Services (1-13):
Separation standards are MINIMA and shall be increased when: (a) Requested by the pilot etc, etc, etc |
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. :p |
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:) |
So, did you get your fuel bonus this month then?:D
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. |
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 |
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 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)... |
<<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! |
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!! ;) |
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 :mad: :rolleyes: |
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 |
Thank you Antigua :)
And just mind you don't get 'nicked' by those Gatsos :D |
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! |
Good Morning Antigua
Whats with the :mad: ? 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 :D TTFN |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:31. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.