neither did AN

It's not a PAN when you have no fuel left and are landing on a taxiway. It's a MAYDAY - (Aircraft is in grave and imminent danger)

Sorry didn't realise this was a loe smart ar*e.

“Taxiways are all capable of taking a landing in such an unlikely emergency that you cannot hold while the clearing the RW.”

Try telling that to ATC in many Asian countries. Good luck.

“2. You having absolute min fuel, ie you have used your contingency”

This will always be the case. If a large aircraft in front of you has a nose gear collapse for example, then no airline will have enough fuel to hold 24 hours while they move it. 30 minutes gas up your sleeve in this situation will do very little for your outcome. Much easier to have a plan B in your pocket I reckon.

My point is that if the airport had a taxiway then how long the aircraft blocks the runway is irrelevant. You have a plan B. Rather than fly 1000's of flights with a few ton extra for an event that is statistically extremely unlikely to happen to you, land on the taxiway. VA have min 60 mins on landing anyway, I wouldn't be comfortable with 30mins. Is qf 30?? That's not a lot of fuel.

Also 30 mins contingency saved would get you to an alternate in many cities.

Doesn't dxb have 2 runways and also Abu 10 mins away?
Mumbai 2 intersecting runways.

I know of few major airports with the taxiway congestion you speak of that would only have 1 rw. If they did takd the fuel, what I'm getting at is its not just black and white.

At the end of the landing roll? Yes. However.....

In 18 1/2 years at QF I've landed with less than 45 minutes once- it was about 42 minutes of fuel. I've landed with less than 60 minutes on perhaps 10-20 occasions- always the subject of a discussion as to the how, what, why, etc.

Most days with benign weather most 767 drivers plan to land with at least 75 minutes*. If we suspect that holding is likely, whilst 75 minutes may take care of the 20 minutes plus fixed and variable and approach, etc, most crew will tack a bit on. Again, the intent is to land with 75ish minutes after finishing holding. This allows also a very sedate and extended 'circuit' in the various TMAs without having to sweat the fuel. A second go around may start to rise the eyebrows a bit though! :ok:

Most guys and gals take single runway destinations into the thought process.

So there is the law, which most crew never get within cooee of, and then there's what we carry. That still won't mean that with unforecast weather changes at the last moment that crew won't be caught out. I've ended up lobbing into Canberra on a forecast CAVOK MEL-SYD sector due unforecast TS at SYD.

*That's 1500' holding fuel too, not FL250 holding fuel.

Hope that helps.

Fuel Law in Oz
 

Hey Keg,

Of course the law in Australia only requires that you take and comply with what is in the Ops Manual. CAAPs are not "law". Isn't it funny how nobody has really moved on from all those decades ago when minimum reserves were mandated in real law! :E

Sure, sure. I get all that. The 'law' for me is 30 minutes at the end of the landing roll. Anything above that is just good sense! :ok:

WRT FFR, didn't I read in an AIPA communique within the last year that CASA are looking at the feasibility of reducing FFR to 15 minutes in lieu of 30 minutes?

Shark Patrol,
If you understood the history and the why of the 30m FFR, and why it is in the relevant ICAO Annex, you would know that that is not going to happen.
Given the general level of ignorance in CASA, and the almost complete loss of corporate memory in that organisation (and some airlines), I can well imagine such a thing being suggested.
The wording of the minimum fuel requirements in the drafts of CASRs Part 121 and Part 135 (last time I looked) do illustrate said level of ignorance.

Tootle pip!!

Ex A380. You're not getting the point. Keg is bang on. There are leagl requirements and then there are airmanship considerations.
If I was flying to Dubai and both RW's were operational with excellent weather then I would plan to land to 75mins and push this down to 60mins with payload considerations.

However if a RW at Dubai was not available I would make sure I had enough for an alternate. Now if the weather at Dubai was marginal then I would take even more - ie it changes each day, its not merely take an alternate and second approach every sector.

The taxiway consideration is for an emergency, the question arose from someone not sure what to do if an aircraft blocked the RW with no fuel. It's something I always keep in the back of my mind should the need arise one day. So what I'm saying is you can should you find yourself in such an unlikely situation.

Virgin is similar. Always an alternate unless 2 independent runways and good wx. In either case min planned landing fuel no less than the greater of 60mins or 30 mins plus alternate. Sounds similar to ek but spoilt compared to qf.

After reading all these posts, I think that we all need to remember that the QF fuel policy sets the MINIMUM legal departure fuel on the ground and the minimum fly on fuel in the air. My reading of the fuel policy reveals nothing forbidding a Cpt from uplifting "sufficient" fuel for the flight in his/her opinion. Indeed, a Cpt is required to uplift that amount of fuel. We are, after all, paid to exercise judgement - tempo SIN in the evenings anyone?

WFK, a principal author of said policy, rarely departed without some extra fuel. use your expertise and judgement.

Folks,
It actually goes a bit further than that, you, the PIC, is requited by law to exercise that judgement, and taking the minimum fuel required by the fuel flight plan does not automatically (although it will be a good part defense) satisfy the law on the subject.
Tootle pip!!

Does an EK or VA flight plan give 1 hour of holding fuel for a Tempo or give diversion fuel to an alternate that does not need a Tempo?:confused:

Often the Tempo fuel at Qantas would be more than a close alternate.

That is very true.

But there also has to be a reasonable policy in place to protect the travelling public from the 1% who think it's ok to land on a taxiway.

It depends on the tempo, tempo TS into WSSS may well elicit some extra gas, but tempo 3000 RASH 25G35 might not....:8

Fun today in syd then with that fog....and no autoland capability. Spiffing.

astinapilot

I'm guessing this is Virgin UK and not Virgin Australia?

You seem to be under the impression that QF plan to land with 30min of fuel, in fact 95% plus the plan has us landing with 60min or more. We only carry an alternate where the WX is forecast below alternate criteria (not LDG minima), in all cases the company does not discourage us for putting more gas on. In 26 years with QF I have only landed twice with 30min. Sh1te happens but it also can when you carry an alternate.

I've operated extensively under both fuel ordering methods and I can't say either is better than the other.