Weather holding fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather holding fuel
After yesterday's east coast effort it has become apparent that some ATC do not understand SAM weather criteria and its application to forecast weather above the SAM but requiring weather hold. The assumption I gleaned was that if the weather said TEMPO we would have it regardless if it was above SAM. Often if the forecast is close to SAM we would carry it even though it is not required however ATC believe it would be carried. Any ATC people care to enlighten us? Such a fundamental error is hard to fathom.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orstraylia
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After yesterday's east coast effort it has become apparent that some ATC do not understand SAM weather criteria and its application to forecast weather above the SAM but requiring weather hold.
Then maybe i`ll be able to have something positive to add to this thread.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extensive delays based on the fact that ATC assume we have the fuel when there is no requirement to do so. Tempo weather does not mean we will have 60 minutes fuel to burn on traffic delays if the forecast is above SAM. RPT fuel policies use SAM where available. ATC yesterday assumed we use alternate weather minima. There is a big difference in minimum weather criteria. The discussion is based around the applicable alternate weather criteria and how ATC use it for their own traffic purposes. A Tempo visibility of say 3000m and base of 800' for Syd or Bne does not require 60 minutes hold fuel since the weather is above SAM but ATC think we must have it! The SAM for the above is 750'/2500m close I know but not equal or below and therefore 60 mins fuel not required. I can't make it any more specific.
Prior to taxi at an outport but after engine(s) start yesterday morning, ATC inform us that Sy now requires 60 minutes holding! (Traffic) No CTMS issued, and Tempo WX on the TTF at Sy above the Alt minima!
Fortunately I earlier put on extra fuel, and after a quick calc we were able to depart without a significant delay due to the refueller being called out. Had to hold for 40 minutes though.
What about those those already airbourne? Just about everything east of Dubbo required at least 60 minutes WX holding. Can't help but think the works on 34R (LOC/DME only) would have made the situation worse.
Heard one Domestic Jet diverting to CB after not having enough fuel to hold for their landing time in SY. Only problem was, Canberra now required an alternate!!! Didn't hear a peep from ATC on that one. WX in Sy gets a bit crappy, and the whole place seems to fall apart!
Fortunately I earlier put on extra fuel, and after a quick calc we were able to depart without a significant delay due to the refueller being called out. Had to hold for 40 minutes though.
What about those those already airbourne? Just about everything east of Dubbo required at least 60 minutes WX holding. Can't help but think the works on 34R (LOC/DME only) would have made the situation worse.
Heard one Domestic Jet diverting to CB after not having enough fuel to hold for their landing time in SY. Only problem was, Canberra now required an alternate!!! Didn't hear a peep from ATC on that one. WX in Sy gets a bit crappy, and the whole place seems to fall apart!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't this be a traffic holding issue rather than SAM.
The BOM forecast weather, regs set out the fuel requirements. If weather is worse than forecast that's a BOM crew up, or was there a specific reference to nt carrying holding fuel with a temp on the TAF/TTF?
If aircraft can take off and and, however are delayed due traffic, the persons responsible for increasing traffic holding are responsible.
I have often contemplated the situation Krusty mentioned, approaching destination and surprise holding increases! I don't have it, pan pan and paperwork I guesss.
The BOM forecast weather, regs set out the fuel requirements. If weather is worse than forecast that's a BOM crew up, or was there a specific reference to nt carrying holding fuel with a temp on the TAF/TTF?
If aircraft can take off and and, however are delayed due traffic, the persons responsible for increasing traffic holding are responsible.
I have often contemplated the situation Krusty mentioned, approaching destination and surprise holding increases! I don't have it, pan pan and paperwork I guesss.
Last edited by Skynews; 1st Dec 2010 at 23:37.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Paradise
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Managing delays
schlong hauler
Fair comment. It's some years since I worked in a major ATC unit so I'm out of touch with the current understanding of ATCs for assessing holding fuel. However, I recall that the problem you mentioned - the lack of understanding by ATCs about the SAM operations, has been around for many years and I suggest that the reason for this is because no one ever properly explained the company fuel policy to the ATCs. Some of us were aware of it but only because of discussions with Airline Company Ops and it became a local knowledge issue and not a national one. Additionally, at the time I understood that different operators had different requirements.
I would suggest that you pursue this one through formal channels with Airservices. They have a National Operations Centre which handles such matters.
Good luck
Fair comment. It's some years since I worked in a major ATC unit so I'm out of touch with the current understanding of ATCs for assessing holding fuel. However, I recall that the problem you mentioned - the lack of understanding by ATCs about the SAM operations, has been around for many years and I suggest that the reason for this is because no one ever properly explained the company fuel policy to the ATCs. Some of us were aware of it but only because of discussions with Airline Company Ops and it became a local knowledge issue and not a national one. Additionally, at the time I understood that different operators had different requirements.
I would suggest that you pursue this one through formal channels with Airservices. They have a National Operations Centre which handles such matters.
Good luck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies. This is interesting because what we as pilots think of as weather holding fuel ATC believe is theirs for traffic flow delays. Alternate requirements and Special Alternate Minimums are different based on the equipment onboard. Atc do not make the distinction.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it would take a bit of extra reading but as we are required to put endurance on the flight plan surely it appears on the flight strip for ATC. I know when I used to control aircraft (tactical, not ATC) I was always acutely aware of the endurance of each aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it would take a bit of extra reading but as we are required to put endurance on the flight plan surely it appears on the flight strip for ATC. I know when I used to control aircraft (tactical, not ATC) I was always acutely aware of the endurance of each aircraft.
We are not required to put endurance on flight plans. Not since operational controlled reverted to the PIC were it rightly belongs and that was years ago, 25 -30 yes ago?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Paradise
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Managing delays
Schlong Hauler
Re your comment - This is interesting because what we as pilots think of as weather holding fuel ATC believe is theirs for traffic flow delays. I don't believe this is correct. As far as I'm aware ATC still consider weather induced delays and traffic induced delays separately. The problem is how do you separate traffic delays resulting from more aircraft in the system than can be processed, from delays caused by weather, when one directly impacts on the other and the outcome will be a combination of result from the two. At least you no longer have the situation where ATC added up the likely maximum delay resulting from traffic and added the delay for Tempo or Inter to give a total maximum delay and issued a traffic holding advisory on that basis.
Re your comment - This is interesting because what we as pilots think of as weather holding fuel ATC believe is theirs for traffic flow delays. I don't believe this is correct. As far as I'm aware ATC still consider weather induced delays and traffic induced delays separately. The problem is how do you separate traffic delays resulting from more aircraft in the system than can be processed, from delays caused by weather, when one directly impacts on the other and the outcome will be a combination of result from the two. At least you no longer have the situation where ATC added up the likely maximum delay resulting from traffic and added the delay for Tempo or Inter to give a total maximum delay and issued a traffic holding advisory on that basis.
The last notam I got said 40 minutes holding for traffic into Sydney. At 12:10 we were given a landing time of 13:29 local!This was on top of the 15 minute delay we copped on the ground in OOL. Then we were sequenced for the LLZ approach onto 34R where ATC stated 50% of the aircraft were getting in. We got in but the aircraft behind did not. Because we are operating to third worlds best practice if there is room for the extra fuel it gets carried. If its INTER I carry TEMPO if its TEMPO I carry ALT regardless of whether its above the SLAM but below the alternate. ATC, airline ops and the BoM are all operating in their own silos so my mitigator of that threat is to have more than enough liquid greenhouse gas to make up for the holes in the cheese.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected. It is not a requirement for submission of a flight plan although in our operations we always do. To the original point of ATC assuming how much fuel you have, if you have had the opportunity to tell them and didn't why be surprised if they don't know?
So when do you tell them? On ACD "we have TEMPO and xxmin TFC". On first contact with Centre? The point is the legal fuel is based on the WX forecast and NOTAM regarding traffic. A subset of the WX is the SLAM which apparently ATC are not taking into account.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What about those those already airbourne? Just about everything east of Dubbo required at least 60 minutes WX holding. Can't help but think the works on 34R (LOC/DME only) would have made the situation worse.
I know of one wise old hand who was in that situation and by careful management of resources and clever negotiating he made it work
. All I can say is these are the days you really work for it and well done!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great attitude. Slam and traffic hold has everything to do with it. ATC don't know and obviously don't care nor understand fuel policy. There was no traffic hold required after 0900 last night into BNE so why the delay or update of requirements. How is a pilot meant to second quess what atc are going to do when you are already airborne without prior knowledge with a finite amount of fuel. If you (ATC) anticipate there will be further TRAFFIC delays then promulgate a Notam to that effect don't use some local knowledge should know better crap. World's best practise not from our point of view. We all expect a few small delays speed reductions and vectoring but being told to hold for 15-20 minutes when there is no expectation and no advisory in place is poor management and especially when the weather is 3000m in rain. To hold out an olive branch we pilots and ATC need to see it from both sides and to look beyond our own backyards. End of rants. The PIC is ultimately responsible and for too long we have become compliant and without question.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schlong hauler,
Aviation is a wonderful a mixture of Science and Art.
The Science teaches you to interpret the legal fuel requirments on a given day.
The Art is that farmyard commonsense that one develops with time to recognise when a bit more fuel might be prudent.
Aviation is a wonderful a mixture of Science and Art.
The Science teaches you to interpret the legal fuel requirments on a given day.
The Art is that farmyard commonsense that one develops with time to recognise when a bit more fuel might be prudent.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.Airservices now have the National Operations Centre (NOC). They have a wealth of experience and should be able to explain all of this stuff.
As far as ATC (Air Traffic Controllers) go, the guy/girl on the end of the headset has bugger all to do with your problem. In regards to yesterday, we had planes holding up to FL390 with in excess of 40 minute delays at 4 different holding points, when we were advised to issue a Hazard alert for SY for holding up to 60 minutes. I think that horse had bolted by that time. We just get on with it.
Hopefully the US Metron system to absorb the delays on the ground will fix this problem.
As an ATC I share your frustration, we get no joy from more and more aircraft entering the holding patterns to burn more and more fuel. Appreciate that the operational ATC talking to you has bugger all input to these decisions. When we had Operational control, way back when, we would advise pilots that they needed more fuel, now it is basically left up to the companies and the PIC.
Hopefully the US Metron system to absorb the delays on the ground will fix this problem
) when the SkyFlow delay is "trimmed" a little on the ground by the operating aircrew we don't seem to get the delays (WRT arriving at SY)...?To the person who wondered what GIGO is/was = Garbage In, Garbage Out (meaning the system relies upon accurate information to give an accurate answer).
This is a very insightful thread, please keep it up!
Regards,
OpsN.
