Weather holding fuel
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it's taken us four pages to get to the point where we understand that:
1) Schlonghauler flew to an aerodrome without having alternate fuel, despite knowing full well that the GP was unserviceable on his probable arrival runway thus annulling it as a SAM approach, and that the actual weather was well below SAM anyway (see below).
2) Despite not having the alternate fuel, held for 60 mins without a murmur, then accepted an approach to the aforementioned runway, failing to require a more suitable one.
3) Went around.
4) This is all ATC's fault because they don't understand his operation.
Add in the fact that the ATIS and TTFs were showing cloud SCT003 from 0804L that morning and all I can say is, awwwsurrrrrrre!!!
1) Schlonghauler flew to an aerodrome without having alternate fuel, despite knowing full well that the GP was unserviceable on his probable arrival runway thus annulling it as a SAM approach, and that the actual weather was well below SAM anyway (see below).
2) Despite not having the alternate fuel, held for 60 mins without a murmur, then accepted an approach to the aforementioned runway, failing to require a more suitable one.
3) Went around.
4) This is all ATC's fault because they don't understand his operation.
Add in the fact that the ATIS and TTFs were showing cloud SCT003 from 0804L that morning and all I can say is, awwwsurrrrrrre!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather Holding Fuel
Adamastor, very well said 
Finally some common sense. I think it's called "Airmanship" and "Command decision making". If the weather's Cr@p and the approach is marginal for GP inop or for whatever reason and you're not happy with minimum Fuel. TAKE More! Enough for holding AND another Airport if you can, especially when you can justify it. And if other Guys are not getting in from a LLZ approach, if there's another more suitable runway with an ILS, use the word "Require".
I always use the Company's weather/Notam package as my way of justifying additional Fuel, not just for the crossword or Soduko
Finally some common sense. I think it's called "Airmanship" and "Command decision making". If the weather's Cr@p and the approach is marginal for GP inop or for whatever reason and you're not happy with minimum Fuel. TAKE More! Enough for holding AND another Airport if you can, especially when you can justify it. And if other Guys are not getting in from a LLZ approach, if there's another more suitable runway with an ILS, use the word "Require".
I always use the Company's weather/Notam package as my way of justifying additional Fuel, not just for the crossword or Soduko
Adamastor
A) Wrong. No need to. Read AIP. You want me, or him, to carry an alternate for SCT at 300'? Refer again AIP.
B) No need to, fortunately he obviously had enough fuel. Despite the traffic as far as I'm aware nobody declared a PAN that morning.
C) Big deal. Half the airplanes did off that runway.
D) Some (notice I said some) in ATC would be better off reading an AIP than writing on PPrune.
From AIC H19/10
1.3 ATC will adjust traffic management to accommodate the absence of the RWY 34R ILS (or components thereof) during periods when instrument approaches are required.
(However, we accept no responsibility in reference to the amount, when it will be notified and to whom it will be notified. Good luck, thankfully those pilots are professionals and often carry extra fuel!
)
A) Wrong. No need to. Read AIP. You want me, or him, to carry an alternate for SCT at 300'? Refer again AIP.
B) No need to, fortunately he obviously had enough fuel. Despite the traffic as far as I'm aware nobody declared a PAN that morning.
C) Big deal. Half the airplanes did off that runway.
D) Some (notice I said some) in ATC would be better off reading an AIP than writing on PPrune.
From AIC H19/10
1.3 ATC will adjust traffic management to accommodate the absence of the RWY 34R ILS (or components thereof) during periods when instrument approaches are required.
(However, we accept no responsibility in reference to the amount, when it will be notified and to whom it will be notified. Good luck, thankfully those pilots are professionals and often carry extra fuel!
)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My recollection is that ops control by ATC disappeared about 20 years ago.
So all this stuff about how much fuel to carry for weather, traffic, diversions has been company/pilot stuff for a long time.
When the pilots get it wrong and declares an emergency - that's when it becomes a problem for ATC (and the pilot).
So all this stuff about how much fuel to carry for weather, traffic, diversions has been company/pilot stuff for a long time.
When the pilots get it wrong and declares an emergency - that's when it becomes a problem for ATC (and the pilot).
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truly frightening stuff.
Sorry, md. My subtlety was clearly missed on you, though not the bus driver.
I'm fully aware of the AIP provisions. I also never said that they HAD to carry it. I said they DIDN'T carry it despite SCT003 and no glidepath. If you'd like to keep flying to YSSY on a day like that and sprout the books to us, then by all means do, but do us a favour and FFS make it solo ops.
P.S. In accordance with the AIC, traffic management was heavily regulated that entire day, and notified to airline ops departments with more than 12 hours notice, but let's not open the CTMS can of worms - I wouldn't be able to show you the precious manual!!!
Sorry, md. My subtlety was clearly missed on you, though not the bus driver.
I'm fully aware of the AIP provisions. I also never said that they HAD to carry it. I said they DIDN'T carry it despite SCT003 and no glidepath. If you'd like to keep flying to YSSY on a day like that and sprout the books to us, then by all means do, but do us a favour and FFS make it solo ops.
P.S. In accordance with the AIC, traffic management was heavily regulated that entire day, and notified to airline ops departments with more than 12 hours notice, but let's not open the CTMS can of worms - I wouldn't be able to show you the precious manual!!!
You're right. I'll tell my bosses that I'm offloading 5 tonnes of freight and putting on 5 tonnes of fuel every time there's a code grey in Sydney. That's because even though the forecast doesn't and didn't require an alternate nor a Tempo a few guys in ATC reckon I should have one because of possible traffic delays in 12 hours time more than their own department had just promulgated. EK Driver, how many times in the last year have you offloaded freight for fuel at MTOW based on possible traffic (not weather) holding? Thought so.
Nobody diverted so we all had adequate fuel including schlonghauler. The point is ATC aren't even aware of the fuel requirements of the AIP in some cases yet they think it's OK to absorb our discretionary holding fuel for their traffic delays. We understand things are dynamic and it changes, we do however want to be kept up to date. Small request. Rant over!
Nobody diverted so we all had adequate fuel including schlonghauler. The point is ATC aren't even aware of the fuel requirements of the AIP in some cases yet they think it's OK to absorb our discretionary holding fuel for their traffic delays. We understand things are dynamic and it changes, we do however want to be kept up to date. Small request. Rant over!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KIDS
The original reason for the post was to give pilots a heads up about holding fuel requirements and ATC. If the two groups don't understand each other's specific considerations then it raises the need for further discussions. Why all the vitriol? A key component is to stay objective and safe. MET were caught out here which happens from time to time. Fuel planning 101 how long is a piece of string? Sounds like ATC consider theirs longer!!!
The original reason for the post was to give pilots a heads up about holding fuel requirements and ATC. If the two groups don't understand each other's specific considerations then it raises the need for further discussions. Why all the vitriol? A key component is to stay objective and safe. MET were caught out here which happens from time to time. Fuel planning 101 how long is a piece of string? Sounds like ATC consider theirs longer!!!
Deciding we may want extra fuel for approaches or diversion due to weather being close to the minima is one thing, using that fuel carving circles in the sky because ATC can't process us in the indicated traffic holding thing is another.
Seeing as we both work in the same environment, surely it can't hurt to have some understanding of the other side of the fence. I know it goes both ways but answers like "why should we care about weather requirements" or "just declare a PAN" are fairly useless...
Seeing as we both work in the same environment, surely it can't hurt to have some understanding of the other side of the fence. I know it goes both ways but answers like "why should we care about weather requirements" or "just declare a PAN" are fairly useless...
From a controller perspective fuel is fuel is fuel. You either have enough or you don't. Your engines will burn it without favour no matter what reason it was loaded for & that's what I care about.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a controller perspective fuel is fuel is fuel. You either have enough or you don't. Your engines will burn it without favour no matter what reason it was loaded for & that's what I care about.
If for example we don't have traffic holding fuel, (none required) however we do have fuel for weather holding, an approach or two or even diversion fuel, all of these planned using forecast actuals and experience and we get held 60 miles out due traffic, and the weather is as forecast and we need that fuel, then your attitude may put us up the creek.
Its no different to taxiing with minimum planned fuel and holding on the ground for excessive periods. We now no longer have fuel required and either have to taxi back or re-plan airborne for to a PNR, etc
As many have already said, we usually, if possible, carry more fuel for such circumstances.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im at a loss as to really what this threads about now...
If its about the NOTAMs for type/length of holding required then you cant bitch at the controller as we dont dispense or update the NOTAMS, go moan at the poeple who do.
If you cant take the hold then declare a pan to get priority or divert to alternate. Controllers cant double guess how much fuel you have on board or whether its traffic or weather fuel (it doesnt make a huge difference to us, you either have enough of it or you dont), if we are holding that much traffic to such a degree workload is normally high. There is only a limited amount of space on the runway at any one time and most controllers arent involved in the flowing system decisions into SY or BN anyway(thats what Sydney Flow & Brisbane Flow do). We have a window that tells us the delay, time to cross the feeder fix & estimated landing time post delay. We work to that, we cant just throw 30 aircraft at approach knowing they can only take 20 and already have 10 in the sequence.
Controllers dont hold or delay flights for the thrill of it - we dont get up int eh morning going "I'm gonna deliberately hold everyone for 30mins just to have a giggle", theres normally a reason. As said above, we go with what the flow want with regards to how much traffic & when they enter Terminal airspace.
These fuel/holding issues should be worked out between your company & ASA because the controller can do bugger all about it when you're up there.
With ref to an earlier post by max1 about the VB out of Port I offered the aircraft a chance to take delay on the ground as there was general holding & delays over 60mins due to nothing arriving in SY due TS overhead(and had been for about 2hours). And he said no, he'll take his chances.
If I've got the wrong point of the post then feel free to enlighten me.
If its about the NOTAMs for type/length of holding required then you cant bitch at the controller as we dont dispense or update the NOTAMS, go moan at the poeple who do.
If you cant take the hold then declare a pan to get priority or divert to alternate. Controllers cant double guess how much fuel you have on board or whether its traffic or weather fuel (it doesnt make a huge difference to us, you either have enough of it or you dont), if we are holding that much traffic to such a degree workload is normally high. There is only a limited amount of space on the runway at any one time and most controllers arent involved in the flowing system decisions into SY or BN anyway(thats what Sydney Flow & Brisbane Flow do). We have a window that tells us the delay, time to cross the feeder fix & estimated landing time post delay. We work to that, we cant just throw 30 aircraft at approach knowing they can only take 20 and already have 10 in the sequence.
Controllers dont hold or delay flights for the thrill of it - we dont get up int eh morning going "I'm gonna deliberately hold everyone for 30mins just to have a giggle", theres normally a reason. As said above, we go with what the flow want with regards to how much traffic & when they enter Terminal airspace.
These fuel/holding issues should be worked out between your company & ASA because the controller can do bugger all about it when you're up there.
With ref to an earlier post by max1 about the VB out of Port I offered the aircraft a chance to take delay on the ground as there was general holding & delays over 60mins due to nothing arriving in SY due TS overhead(and had been for about 2hours). And he said no, he'll take his chances.
If I've got the wrong point of the post then feel free to enlighten me.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orstraylia
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents worth....
Like Rotorblades i`ve kinda lost what this thread is about but one point i`d like to add.
In a radar enviroment doesn`t AIP state that aircraft should be informed when a delay of more than 5 minutes can be expected? I don`t have a copy in front of me but any time an aircraft is delayed by more than 5 minutes we give you a landing time. From this information surely any pilot can quickly assess his fuel state?
Ok, some days when the weather is ordinary the landing times may be a little inaccurate but, as someone stated earlier, we don`t go out of our way to bugger anybody about.
Anybody heard anything from the NOC yet? If you have could we have a gander thanks.....
Like Rotorblades i`ve kinda lost what this thread is about but one point i`d like to add.
In a radar enviroment doesn`t AIP state that aircraft should be informed when a delay of more than 5 minutes can be expected? I don`t have a copy in front of me but any time an aircraft is delayed by more than 5 minutes we give you a landing time. From this information surely any pilot can quickly assess his fuel state?
Ok, some days when the weather is ordinary the landing times may be a little inaccurate but, as someone stated earlier, we don`t go out of our way to bugger anybody about.
Anybody heard anything from the NOC yet? If you have could we have a gander thanks.....
You cant understand our situation with comments like that. Ex RAAF are you?
If for example we don't have traffic holding fuel, (none required) however we do have fuel for weather holding, an approach or two or even diversion fuel, all of these planned using forecast actuals and experience and we get held 60 miles out due traffic, and the weather is as forecast and we need that fuel, then your attitude may put us up the creek.
You either have enough fuel or you tell me you don't & what you want to do. On days when there are big delays I probably wouldn't have time to think about fuel even if I wanted to - too busy keeping you apart.
As has been said before - take it up with your company to take up with AsA as it's a systemic problem. Put in reports. There's no point in us doing it because we don't have the specifics of the events.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
take it up with your company to take up with AsA as it's a systemic problem. Put in reports
I see the thread has drifted to a discussion on how both sides of the fence see different holding fuel requirements, nothing more nothing less.
