Do BA use LHR as their first alternate for planning purposes when flying into LHR?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know what BA do but, as a couple of people have already posted, it is perfectly legal to despatch without an alternate airport (OPS 1.295 as already stated by Eurotraveler). You don't take "alternate fuel" because you have no alternate; you take an extra 15 minutes reserve (Appendix 1 to OPS 1.255, 1.6b). So, you would despatch (assuming suitable weather, less than six hour flight and two separate runways) with taxi fuel, trip fuel plus contingency, standard final reserve (30 mins) plus an extra 15 minutes reserve.
If, during flight you burned the planned trip fuel and all the contingency you would still arrive at destination with 45 minutes fuel remaining.
This procedure is perfectly legal (under EU OPS), perfectly safe and I have used it several times operating into LHR in an Airbus (I'm not going to say which airline due to some of the outlandish remarks already made on here).
That said, it's often better to nominate Stansted as an alternate because then you can reduce the fuel even more as you don't need the extra 15 minutes reserve. ie if there is an alternate within 15 minutes flying time then you'd best nominate that.
Betterfromabove, you better hope your wife and kids are safe with 30 minutes final reserve; that's what OPS requires and it's what most European airlines plan for. PPL pilots on VFR flights are flying aeroplanes with far less reliable fuel quantity and consumption indications (your J3 has a bent wire after all!) and they are flying in winds which are often a far greater fraction of their TAS than airliners so are more affected by wind. OPS requires 30 minutes final reserve for turbine powered aeroplanes and that works just fine for me.
If you want to know the real answers to a point of regulation then look it up in the source document; if you come on PPrune you get lots of opinion, some of it better informed than others.
Happy landings
3 Point
If, during flight you burned the planned trip fuel and all the contingency you would still arrive at destination with 45 minutes fuel remaining.
This procedure is perfectly legal (under EU OPS), perfectly safe and I have used it several times operating into LHR in an Airbus (I'm not going to say which airline due to some of the outlandish remarks already made on here).
That said, it's often better to nominate Stansted as an alternate because then you can reduce the fuel even more as you don't need the extra 15 minutes reserve. ie if there is an alternate within 15 minutes flying time then you'd best nominate that.
Betterfromabove, you better hope your wife and kids are safe with 30 minutes final reserve; that's what OPS requires and it's what most European airlines plan for. PPL pilots on VFR flights are flying aeroplanes with far less reliable fuel quantity and consumption indications (your J3 has a bent wire after all!) and they are flying in winds which are often a far greater fraction of their TAS than airliners so are more affected by wind. OPS requires 30 minutes final reserve for turbine powered aeroplanes and that works just fine for me.
If you want to know the real answers to a point of regulation then look it up in the source document; if you come on PPrune you get lots of opinion, some of it better informed than others.
Happy landings
3 Point
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betterfromabove.
It is perfectly legal to land with 30 minutes fuel remaining. Again, you may not like it, but EU OPS allows it. You can't plan for it, but you can do it.
In the LHR scenario, the operator would have to allow for a missed approach, vectors/routing and subsequent approach before getting down to 30 minutes remaining.
Taking the argument on, you could refuse "planned fuel" for the two runway CAVOK airfield with no diversion. Ops then offer Northolt as a diversion airfield for LHR (A319/BAe146 or similar?). The diversion fuel for the other runway at LHR would probably be about the same. Which would you be most comfortable with?
It is perfectly legal to land with 30 minutes fuel remaining. Again, you may not like it, but EU OPS allows it. You can't plan for it, but you can do it.
In the LHR scenario, the operator would have to allow for a missed approach, vectors/routing and subsequent approach before getting down to 30 minutes remaining.
Taking the argument on, you could refuse "planned fuel" for the two runway CAVOK airfield with no diversion. Ops then offer Northolt as a diversion airfield for LHR (A319/BAe146 or similar?). The diversion fuel for the other runway at LHR would probably be about the same. Which would you be most comfortable with?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northolt as a diversion from LHR? I'm not sure the boys in blue would fancy that idea.
Of course noise abatement goes in an emergency, but I didn't think we were discussing that.
What pilots and ops personnel should remember is that just because an airfield has two runways both may not be available for landing. When one is the departure runway, the final approach area may be "given away" for WIP - grass cutting, lighting maintenance, even the presence of high cranes working on or off the airport which could take an hour or so to move. My view as a controller, and one which I put to ops people donkeys years ago, is that the runway which is being used for departures should be viewed as "most likely closed" to landings then you won't go wrong.
Of course noise abatement goes in an emergency, but I didn't think we were discussing that.
What pilots and ops personnel should remember is that just because an airfield has two runways both may not be available for landing. When one is the departure runway, the final approach area may be "given away" for WIP - grass cutting, lighting maintenance, even the presence of high cranes working on or off the airport which could take an hour or so to move. My view as a controller, and one which I put to ops people donkeys years ago, is that the runway which is being used for departures should be viewed as "most likely closed" to landings then you won't go wrong.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could turn that argument through 180 degrees and say that airfield ops/ATC personnel need to be made aware that "some" operators may have filed their two runway CAVOK destination without an alternate! I seem to remember a certain SE Asian carrier arriving at LHR with very little fuel remaining on the 744 a few years ago....
I think it is largely hypothetical and I'm not aware of anyone using this rule on a day to day basis, but it is legal and creates some interesting discussion.
I think it is largely hypothetical and I'm not aware of anyone using this rule on a day to day basis, but it is legal and creates some interesting discussion.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Yellow Pen has already stated, BA do not use LHR as a destination and alternate. Nice weather and all things being equal, LGW would normally be the filed alternate. On the day, running out of petroleum and thrashing round the LAM hold, a lot of guys will re-designate STN as their alternate and calculate their fuel accordingly.
However, just occasionally, when the weather's nice and within 6 hours etc etc, LGW might get thrown away and the fuel that gets 'freed up' is then used to increase the holding time available, if required. This is clearly not planned, so doesn't contradict the original answer of 'no' but having the 2 separate runways is sometimes used, as per the rules.
However, just occasionally, when the weather's nice and within 6 hours etc etc, LGW might get thrown away and the fuel that gets 'freed up' is then used to increase the holding time available, if required. This is clearly not planned, so doesn't contradict the original answer of 'no' but having the 2 separate runways is sometimes used, as per the rules.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director, many thanks for your interesting info on the Departure runway. To be honest, I never thought of the departure runway in that sense (and it is good information to have).
That was an interesting discussion and I appreciate all your info and feedback.
Safe flying.....
That was an interesting discussion and I appreciate all your info and feedback.
Safe flying.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our, and I suspect most, Ops manuals, effectively allow you to dispense with an Alternate (sometimes called "committing") in the latter stages of a flight.
In the event 1 runway is lost at LHR, meltdown starts
You have a full runway's allocation approaching LHR, some may already have "committed", other soon will be. Meanwhile, you have a full deparature runway's allocation of departure traffic wanting to go, and if the closure is for any length of time, then mixed departure/arrivals will be considered, even actioned.
Now, no insult to the LHR ATCOs, but they are not overly experienced at this, nor are the crews, and the chance of a "smooth" integrated operation is not something I would rely on to arrive into without an alternate.
So, a proposal to set off for LHR, where you ALTN is LHR, is effectively predicting the above situation, and then committing into it
Put it another way... in the right circs, I will "commit" to LHR (2 RWs), and other single RW airfields. I will never commit to LHR when it has gone single RW. This is not based on a whim, or divine wisdom, but thinking through a situation that did occur not many years ago, which I was fortunate enough not to be involved in, but many were, and some frightened themselves
(IIRC KLM 767 stuck 09R, 743 late GA 09L, Cx A343 aborting then stuck for a while (?) 09L).
NoD
In the event 1 runway is lost at LHR, meltdown starts
You have a full runway's allocation approaching LHR, some may already have "committed", other soon will be. Meanwhile, you have a full deparature runway's allocation of departure traffic wanting to go, and if the closure is for any length of time, then mixed departure/arrivals will be considered, even actioned.Now, no insult to the LHR ATCOs, but they are not overly experienced at this, nor are the crews, and the chance of a "smooth" integrated operation is not something I would rely on to arrive into without an alternate.
So, a proposal to set off for LHR, where you ALTN is LHR, is effectively predicting the above situation, and then committing into it
Put it another way... in the right circs, I will "commit" to LHR (2 RWs), and other single RW airfields. I will never commit to LHR when it has gone single RW. This is not based on a whim, or divine wisdom, but thinking through a situation that did occur not many years ago, which I was fortunate enough not to be involved in, but many were, and some frightened themselves
(IIRC KLM 767 stuck 09R, 743 late GA 09L, Cx A343 aborting then stuck for a while (?) 09L).NoD
I'm not a pilot myself - more concerned with the commercial side of things, but have a question that someone may be able to answer. What are the rules when an airport en-route is nominated as the primary destination on the assumption (hope?) that the contigency allowance will not be used and it will be possible to "divert" to the scheduled destination? I know that this use to happen quite a lot in the past.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you might be referring to a technique sometimes known as "in flight re-planning." But this still means that you have to have enough fuel to get to your destination AND divert to an alternate, with reserves. The criteria determining the acceptability of an alternate nominated in flight are exactly the same as those used when planning before flight. The reason you might do this is that you were going to take a chance that you would get a better route, a continuous climb, better winds etc. When you are closer to your destination you are now able to burn the some of contingency fuel you had when you initially departed.
As to whether a parallel runway should is acceptable as an alternate, consider this. I have been flying short haul for just under 20 years and have diverted a few times. Just half of these diversions were nothing to do with weather. Two were due to fires in the terminals, some have been due to (lack of) snow clearing equipment, one for lack of de-icing fluid, two for power-cuts, one for congestion, another for a security panic. Considering each and every one of these happened with short notice suggests that it is prudent to carry fuel for a totally different airfield as the unexpected occurs with enough frequency to justify the cost of the carriage of additional fuel.
PM
As to whether a parallel runway should is acceptable as an alternate, consider this. I have been flying short haul for just under 20 years and have diverted a few times. Just half of these diversions were nothing to do with weather. Two were due to fires in the terminals, some have been due to (lack of) snow clearing equipment, one for lack of de-icing fluid, two for power-cuts, one for congestion, another for a security panic. Considering each and every one of these happened with short notice suggests that it is prudent to carry fuel for a totally different airfield as the unexpected occurs with enough frequency to justify the cost of the carriage of additional fuel.
PM
