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.

Enlighten me. What went wrong yesterday?

Then maybe i`ll be able to have something positive to add to this thread.

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! :rolleyes:

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Good point Krusty.....

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 :E.

All I can say is these are the days you really work for it and well done! :D

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.

My guess is that the 20 missed approaches on RWY 34R didn't help all that much.

What do SLAM and GIGO stand for please.

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.

Give them a ring and please post some of their answers here. Their 'wealth of experience' will shine through.:ooh:

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.

That being the case, then what is the status of a published SkyFlow delay (read: ground holding) reports we digest and apply to our operations each day? Are they advisory only - we do seem to have to hold enroute even when we do wait out the published delay on the ground at the departure aerodrome, and yet (not that I would ever admit to being guilty of this here....:oh: ) 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.;)

I may be ignorant (probably), but never heard of it.


I had extensive holding delays (40+minutes) about three weeks ago, and watched the Virgin jet get out of Port Macquarie for Sy (flight time 37 minutes) for me to hold. Go figure. Yesterday held a slot for the Pelican flight out of Williamtown and he departed fifteen minutes late.
The operational ATC will attempt to help you out but as we see with ALOFT and RTAs if everybody is not 'playing the game' this will effect the sequence.

CDM training is about to be conducted with the companies. With respect to GIGO, CDM is reliant on up-to-date information being shared by all parties. Not going to help much if the data is flawed, and I would guess during periods of delays through the network, disruptions, aircraft going unserviceable, then the chances of the data being remotely correct I would guess would be pretty low (inverse relationship).

How often do the companies send a delay? Very low percentage I would have thought.

Wednesday must have been a record number of missed approaches for Sydney, including some aircraft going around twice due weather.

And what's more, the RWY 34R LOC won't be fully replaced until this time next year. New AIP SUP to be issued.

schlong hauler, unless it's in the standard docs (AIP, MATS, & such) how are we to know anything about SAM? Particularly if it's type/airline specific. Inter means carrying 30 holding & Tempo 60 according to AIP. You'll need to enlighten me where SAM comes from and why I should need to know as a controller.

All that stuff belongs to the long deceased ops & is handled by your company now as far as I'm concerned. As a controller I can only pass on what I'm told about.

Complain to your company & get them to complain to AsA because there's nothing a controller sitting in front of a radar can do about it. Asking me over the air is pretty pointless.

For SAM, then try this document, section 4 refers to Airport Weather Briefings.

http://reg.bom.gov.au/general/reg/ash/ASH.pdf

There is additional informaton available on the registered users section of BoM site eg a Graphical airport Briefing Display. If operators, individual pilots and the APP units aren't using this information then access arrangements need to be promulgated.

For your information inter and tempo weather does not necessarily mean 30 or 60 minutes hold. Only if the weather for that period is at or below the alternate minima or in most RPT cases at or below the special alternate minima. I don't expect for a guy in front of a radar to have to worry about this however assumptions about an aircraft's fuel status based on GA type weather analysis is plain wrong.
Special Alternate Minima section can be found in the AIP ENR 1.5 page 31 paragraph 6.2 The aircraft navigation equipment is shown in the ATS data block of the flight plan. Every jet and probably 90% of all turboprops are capable of this basic equipment level. If holding is not promulgated for an airport I can't hold. What if we all did this just using the information supplied and flight plan fuel ordering accordingly. The ASIRs due low fuel status would make a mockery of Mum and the Kids fuel policy. A 20 minute delay in a holding pattern in level flight at 20,000' is 700-800kgs extra in a 737. I am not having a go at any individual but at a system problem. A Lack of understanding and information about such a fundamental subject like fuel and holding expectation for traffic management when we are inundated with notams about cranes miles from a runway is indicative of a department pointing in the wrong direction. GIGO.

SLAM
 

Because it's printed on the Aerodrome chart, for all to see. Am I missing something? Jepps, terminal section page AU-26 reads:

"special alt min are available for specific approaches at some aerodromes for use by aircraft with dual ILS/VOR approach capability, ie. with duplicated LOC, G/P, marker and VOR recievers blah blah blah".

It says nothing about specific company requirements. So the back of the aerodrome chart for Syd says SLAM is 700' - 2.5km for all categories of aircraft. Therefore if the TTF for syd says Tempo BKN at 1000' and 3000m vis then technically old mate in his kingair (let alone 737/747) with dual ILS equipment is not required to carry the tempo holding fuel.

Do you mean to tell me ATC don't know about this? Or have I missed the point and you guys are talking about something more specific?

Im afraid (as a pilot) I can't see the relationship between SAM and ATC.

My understanding is they should not be holding us for traffic reasons using our weather holding fuel. i.e. if there is traffic for what ever reason, missed approaches, single runway ops whatever, that fuel should be NOTAMed, or promulgated in the AIP, as traffic holding.

If we are required to hold for weather, or carry out a missed approach due not meeting the required vis etc, that is primarily OUR decision not theirs, and we carry fuel based on weather forecasts.

By rights, and i am not suggesting this is sensible, we can plan to arrive at our destination with Fixed reserve, and variable reserve. (assuming no weather holding) with weather down to SAM.
Lets say we use our variable reserve en route, then we will land with fixed only.
If ATC decide for whatever reason they need to hold us, and that results in us arriving with less than fixed reserve, we make a PAN call and will be afforded priority, as I said I am not suggesting thats a good idea at all, simply my way of highlighting how I believe the requirements fit together.

If we are approaching and have say fuel for a required TEMPO, (lets say TS) and they are in the area ad there is a significant risk they will have an affect on our approach, all we have onboard is fixed reserve and tempo fuel and ATC start holding us, then we need to use airmanship and make a decision. That maybe making a PAN call, that maybe deciding that the TS will move on enabling us to land within the Tempo period and all is well, it may mean a diversion if possible.(This is the type of situation where I personally like to see an old head up front not a low time Captain with a cadet.)

I am not going to be happy having my 60 mins weather fuel eroded in a holding pattern at 60 nm in a holding pattern at FL200 with an ATIS indicating weather near the SAM.

Is that how you guys see it?

Having said all the above if I were flying into Sydney and there were no weather requirements, nut the weather was below the normal alternate minima, I would carry at least 60 mins + whatever traffic holding fuel, and thats the very minimum. More fuel would be considered based on weather at nearby possible alternates, Canberra, Williamtown etc etc.


TEMPO and INTER having little to do with holding fuel. They are simply a time frame for a change in weather. Too many people see Tempo and automatically think 60 mins holding, which is of course rubbish.

biton and skynews got it in a nut shell. I wonder what assumptions were made in SYD about my fuel status after my G/A off 34R LOC after holding for 60 minutes for TRAFFIC . I bet they were wrong.

If it were marginal I wouldn't be concerned about their assumptions, I would be telling them the facts.

At the end of the day ATC don't know whats in our tanks, only we do, so if for some reason its getting doubtful, tell them and they will have to work things out.

biton

Unless I am mistaken, from what I have read here, there may be a few ATC controllers who do not understand SAM and probably don't need to.
Having said that, increasing of holding time by ATC is understandable when they see the weather changing for the worst and a probability of traffic banking up, they will know what the system will handle.
I have to say that in my 12 years of domestic ops, I never diverted or had a PAN due lack of holding fuel.

SLAMMING SAMMY.....wasn't he a boxer?
 

"Hold short runway ??" Oh sorry about that I didn't realize it was in the AIP.

We are professionals aren't we?

This has nothing to do with the PIC's command prerogative. Most companies in Australia when testing Australians (or peolple from other places:p) for command are pretty thorough in vetting their candidates and provided they have commensurate experience levels nearly all take extra fuel when commonsense dictates.

However; importantly, we make these decisions based on what the 'baseline' fuel requirements are and what we need to add. If the premise of the baseline is wrong because of systemic issues we have a problem. Not regarding common sense the fuel required at Sydney initially was 35 mins ADVISORY holding and FFR (fixed fuel reserve 30 mins) plus an approach (CARs and CAAPs). The instant that ATC can see holding requirements change due traffic they should immediately issue a hazard alert / sigmet / notam etc..

The problem I see here from what I've read is that many of the controllers think we would have TEMPO fuel. We didn't yesterday as it was below alternate criteria but not below SAM. (Note. It is now SAM not SLAM). Why didn't we have TEMPO FUEL? We were at MTOW coming from somewhere over 9 hours away and were issued with an international code grey. There was no requirement to have a TEMPO as it wasn't below the SAM however we took as much fuel as we could get on to the aircraft i.e. fueled to MTOW. If however, it was below the SAM we would have been required to carry the TEMPO i.e. offload freight.

The weather wasn't significant enough to be below the SAM however the traffic requirements would be and an amended traffic requirement should have been issued. Just because it says TEMPO does NOT mean we have it nor are we required to have it. If you know however that you are going to have significant traffic delays (I don't have one of your fancy computers in the cockpit) then duty of care would require you to amend the traffic holding.

I notice some here (chest beaters) will say take more fuel but hopefully I've pointed out that it isn't always that simple. Question to ATC bosses: If all aircraft carried only the minimum legal requirements and you didn't amend the traffic requirements, how do you land 25 aircraft at once declaring a PAN PAN?:ooh:

Jeez, flew in Aussie for a couple of years, had a great time but I did find myself saying on many times to upgrade trainee's after they had given the standard spiel, "Its Pilot in Command not ATC in command". Being blinded by the rules is a real aussie problem.

Can someone please tell me what SAM is? TAFs, Metars, ATC holding I understand. We use them worldwide but SAM????

from post above.

billyt

SAM is used by Australian operators and is a special alternate minima expressed as cloud base and visibility, not all airports have the same SAM as it depends on what nav aids are available. If the forcast cloud base and visibility is above that of SAM, you don't need an alternate.

Anything to do with amount of fuel on board = P.I.C problem.
Facilitating any number of a/c to get safely on the deck asap = atc problem.

Thank you Capn Bloggs and offchocks.

Tyler Durden, are you aware that discretionary fuel ordering is common with Australian operators as legislated for the PIC, I believe though that foreign operators don't all have the same rules. Hopefully, in this day and age we all see it as our problem.

Avianca Flight 52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, if I was running short I would probably pipe up...

good one Tyler!
 

I'm with Tyler on this...
I'd like a dollar/rial/dirham/euro for every time I have heard pilots complain about lack of fuel and an inability to hold etc...declare an emergency or tell me what your latest divert time to your alternate is...don't tell me that it is unacceptable, that you are "getting low on fuel" or otherwise whine and moan on the frequency.