Do BA use LHR as their first alternate for planning purposes when flying into LHR?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do BA use LHR as their first alternate for planning purposes when flying into LHR?
Hi folks. Does anyone know the answer to the above question?
I was suggesting the same to my company however the flight planning system would not allow the flight planners nominate LHR as an alternate for a flight that is planned to LHR.
I was querying whether it would be ok to nominate your destination as your first alternate, particularly taking into account the fact that there are parallel runways with CAT III capability and the likelihood of a diversion anywhere else is very slim unless the airport were to close.
Thanks very much.
Bing
I was suggesting the same to my company however the flight planning system would not allow the flight planners nominate LHR as an alternate for a flight that is planned to LHR.
I was querying whether it would be ok to nominate your destination as your first alternate, particularly taking into account the fact that there are parallel runways with CAT III capability and the likelihood of a diversion anywhere else is very slim unless the airport were to close.
Thanks very much.
Bing
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West London
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternates
An alternate is another airport. It is not the parallel runway of your destination. The alternate should be sufficiently far away from your destination that if weather, e.g. fog, was a problem at the destination then your alternate may be alright. The fuel to get to the alternate is part of the flight plan calculation and I have never heard of anybody wanting to use their destination as their alternate! What would you do if your destination was closed and you didnt have fuel to go anywhere else. Nightmare.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the original posting and thought 'this doesn't make a lot of sense' but as I'm not involved at the pointy end of aircraft I didn't want to say anything. I'm glad someone else feels the same about what seems an odd question.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West London
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capetonian. I am rather disturbed to think that people like Bingaling are allowed anywhere near a flight planning role, which is a responsible task, when they obviously do not have a clue about what they are doing.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bingaling.... just because Heathrow and other airfields have two runways it does not mean that both are available for landing at the same time. What would be the point in declaring the other runway as the alternate in times of bad weather for example?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An alternate might be an alternate landing aid/runway
In the usual langage we consider an alternate as an alternate airport, but soemtimes the need is for a second runway, which can be close or far... Close can be 50mrs away or 50 miles.....
For weather alternates distance matters, for a pure alternate then the second runway can count.
Glf
For weather alternates distance matters, for a pure alternate then the second runway can count.
Glf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate where you are coming from with regards to not being able to nominate your destination as an alternate when the weather is poor and Heathrow Director, you are absolutely correct that there would be no point in nominating LHR as the alternate if the weather was poor as you would definitely require an alternate (ie other airport)
However, I just think you could hugely reduce your fuel costs over the cost of a year if, when, and only when, the weather and conditions are suitable to nominate LHR as the alternate. Gulfstreamaviator seems to think along the same lines as myself.
Grasscarp, if your destination (ie LHR) was to close then a decision on a diversion would have to be made very promptly. You would still have half an hour of fuel remaining; at least. If, at the planning stage LHR was looking a little dodgy then of course you would nominate another (separate) airfield.
I still can't see the major problem with the suggestion. On a day like today I can't see any reason why it couldn't be done. The weather is beautiful and in the absolute worst case scenario you still have 30 mins fuel remaining for an emergency.
If it is not permitted, where is it written down?
However, I just think you could hugely reduce your fuel costs over the cost of a year if, when, and only when, the weather and conditions are suitable to nominate LHR as the alternate. Gulfstreamaviator seems to think along the same lines as myself.
Grasscarp, if your destination (ie LHR) was to close then a decision on a diversion would have to be made very promptly. You would still have half an hour of fuel remaining; at least. If, at the planning stage LHR was looking a little dodgy then of course you would nominate another (separate) airfield.
I still can't see the major problem with the suggestion. On a day like today I can't see any reason why it couldn't be done. The weather is beautiful and in the absolute worst case scenario you still have 30 mins fuel remaining for an emergency.
If it is not permitted, where is it written down?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West London
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you want to dispatch an aircraft and in the event of a problem that prevents them landing, they should use their reserve fuel and decided on their own alternate and work out a route to it, because the dispatcher didnt want to build it into the flight plan. If they dont need to go to an alternate the fuel is not used, so you are not going to make much of a saving by not giving it to them in the first place (apart from a slight cost of transporting extra fuel). Hey what do I know anyway. I have only been in this game for over 20 years.
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Grasscarp...
If it's public transport, it's written down in the JAR-OPS Fuel Policy in your Ops Manual Part A - possibly Section 8, Ops Procedures:
Read Alternate fuel which shall include...
The general object of the standard JAR Fuel Policy is A sufficient quantity of fuel is carried for the intended flight with a safe margin for contingencies
What your suggesting is the Account's Department's/bonus driven management's dream but I would suggest not legal! Even in a private ops environment, I would be amazed if any pilot would except it! YOUR fuel policy would significantly reduce ANY margins of decision making for a Flight Crew now 'boxed' into a corner - simply not realistic for London TMA Ops. Remember that wonderful weather day, I think Summer 2009, I was inbound to LGW when ATC at LHR had evacuated the Tower due to a fire?!? It was carnage!
In my previous airline, we nominated LHR as the alternate for LGW, this was subject to an agreement from NATS and only used in times of good weather and very few carried PLOG fuel!
The fact you can't see a problem would lead me to believe you are:
*Finance/Management/Owner (*Delete as applicable) Sorry it's harsh, but as a pilot what you're suggesting is tosh!
Cheers
JB
Read Alternate fuel which shall include...
The general object of the standard JAR Fuel Policy is A sufficient quantity of fuel is carried for the intended flight with a safe margin for contingencies
What your suggesting is the Account's Department's/bonus driven management's dream but I would suggest not legal! Even in a private ops environment, I would be amazed if any pilot would except it! YOUR fuel policy would significantly reduce ANY margins of decision making for a Flight Crew now 'boxed' into a corner - simply not realistic for London TMA Ops. Remember that wonderful weather day, I think Summer 2009, I was inbound to LGW when ATC at LHR had evacuated the Tower due to a fire?!? It was carnage!
In my previous airline, we nominated LHR as the alternate for LGW, this was subject to an agreement from NATS and only used in times of good weather and very few carried PLOG fuel!
The fact you can't see a problem would lead me to believe you are:
*Finance/Management/Owner (*Delete as applicable) Sorry it's harsh, but as a pilot what you're suggesting is tosh!
Cheers
JB
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from JAR OPS 1.295:
So if you have a flight under 6 hours, two separate landing surfaces at your destination airfield and the weather is within the limits described above, you do not require a destination alternate (ie you can use your destination as an alternate).
I'm not saying it's good practice but I believe it to be legal. I know of at least one airline which was considering adopting this policy at MAN but decided against it.
(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
(1) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours,
and
(ii) Two separate runways [(See JAR-OPS 1.192)] are available and usable at the destination [aerodrome] and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at [the] destination [aerodrome], the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km.
(1) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours,
and
(ii) Two separate runways [(See JAR-OPS 1.192)] are available and usable at the destination [aerodrome] and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at [the] destination [aerodrome], the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km.
I'm not saying it's good practice but I believe it to be legal. I know of at least one airline which was considering adopting this policy at MAN but decided against it.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it may not be to your liking, but EU Ops does allow this procedure. There are high weather minima that apply. It's not something I fancy, but this is from our Ops Manual.
At least one destination alternate must be selected for each IFR flight
unless:
(a) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or,
in the event of in-flight re-planning does not exceed 6 hours
or, in the event of in flight replanning in accordance with
Section 8.1.7, the remaining flying time to destination does
not exceed 2 hours, and
(ii) Two separate runways are available and usable at the
destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather reports
or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any
combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one
hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival the ceiling will be at least 2000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5km.
You beat me to it Eurotraveller! I've never done it and would approach it with a great deal of caution, but it can be legal given the above. Perhaps FR would like to start the ball rolling.
At least one destination alternate must be selected for each IFR flight
unless:
(a) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or,
in the event of in-flight re-planning does not exceed 6 hours
or, in the event of in flight replanning in accordance with
Section 8.1.7, the remaining flying time to destination does
not exceed 2 hours, and
(ii) Two separate runways are available and usable at the
destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather reports
or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any
combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one
hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival the ceiling will be at least 2000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5km.
You beat me to it Eurotraveller! I've never done it and would approach it with a great deal of caution, but it can be legal given the above. Perhaps FR would like to start the ball rolling.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that's what I was asking. So I'm correct in the fact that it is legal.
I am thinking of the scenario where you are flight planned to LHR.
You take....
1) Taxi fuel
2) Planned burn off
3) Contingency
4) Alternate fuel (which for LHR would be approx 600kgs for 737/320)
5) Final Reserve fuel (ie 30 mins)
....and finally, if you are expecting holding based on statistical flight data then you take extra fuel for holding.
I still haven't been convinced that it is a bad idea. And I'm enjoying the debate.
JB007, I remember the fire in LHR. Now, some might think that is a disaster and it's time to panic, but I don't. Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham are some of the options. And with the fuel mentioned above plenty to keep you going.
763 and Eurotraveller. Well done on the research. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I know you may not agree with my theory on it but I appreciate you taking the time to post up the rules.
Rgds,
Bing
I am thinking of the scenario where you are flight planned to LHR.
You take....
1) Taxi fuel
2) Planned burn off
3) Contingency
4) Alternate fuel (which for LHR would be approx 600kgs for 737/320)
5) Final Reserve fuel (ie 30 mins)
....and finally, if you are expecting holding based on statistical flight data then you take extra fuel for holding.
I still haven't been convinced that it is a bad idea. And I'm enjoying the debate.
JB007, I remember the fire in LHR. Now, some might think that is a disaster and it's time to panic, but I don't. Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham are some of the options. And with the fuel mentioned above plenty to keep you going.
763 and Eurotraveller. Well done on the research. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I know you may not agree with my theory on it but I appreciate you taking the time to post up the rules.
Rgds,
Bing
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR would probably be a non starter in the real world. I was thinking about a situation where it could be feasible.
Your destination is Las Palmas (two long separate runways), in the middle of the night. ACE and FUE are both closed after 11PM (if memory serves). So usually, TFS would be the obvious choice. I'm ignoring TFN for the sake of the argument. Just as you check in, TFS closes due to a large hole in the runway, stranded aircraft etc, so it is unavailable. LPA is CAVOK and traffic is light until the morning.
It would not be unreasonable to dispatch given the above, although I would take the fuel for TFS anyway and keep updated on the LPA conditions on the way down.
Your destination is Las Palmas (two long separate runways), in the middle of the night. ACE and FUE are both closed after 11PM (if memory serves). So usually, TFS would be the obvious choice. I'm ignoring TFN for the sake of the argument. Just as you check in, TFS closes due to a large hole in the runway, stranded aircraft etc, so it is unavailable. LPA is CAVOK and traffic is light until the morning.
It would not be unreasonable to dispatch given the above, although I would take the fuel for TFS anyway and keep updated on the LPA conditions on the way down.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bingaling. Have you considered noise abatement? At Heathrow, for example, the use of runways is strictly controlled and a request to land on the departure runway would have to be justified, if the runway was available.
I'm curious to know under what circumstances anyone would choose the other runway as an "alternate" assuming the weather was good..?
I'm curious to know under what circumstances anyone would choose the other runway as an "alternate" assuming the weather was good..?
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the fire in LHR. Now, some might think that is a disaster and it's time to panic, but I don't. Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham are some of the options. And with the fuel mentioned above plenty to keep you going.
I'm curious to know under what circumstances anyone would choose the other runway as an "alternate" assuming the weather was good..?
Cheers
JB
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be a fool that used this for the purposes of saving fuel. However, I suspect it is in EU OPS as a "joker" card to be used when unusual circumstances prevail.
No doubt someone will prove me wrong!
No doubt someone will prove me wrong!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just stumbled across this post by accident and I REALLY hope this is a wind-up....
Bingaling - You really think 30 mins Final Reserve is what your wife and kids in the back would be comfortable with?
"Chances of LHR not being available very slim". Have you any idea about SE England runway capacities??
Christ, even VFR PPL's carry 45 mins Final Reserve as an ABSOLUTE minimum and we have juicy green fields to put down into if we need to.
I really hope you aren't working for an airline I have to travel on...
Bingaling - You really think 30 mins Final Reserve is what your wife and kids in the back would be comfortable with?
"Chances of LHR not being available very slim". Have you any idea about SE England runway capacities??
Christ, even VFR PPL's carry 45 mins Final Reserve as an ABSOLUTE minimum and we have juicy green fields to put down into if we need to.
I really hope you aren't working for an airline I have to travel on...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe that some regular operators into LHR have (or, at least, have had in the past) provision in their OPS manual to designate the second runway as the alternate in certain circumstances. As others point out, it doesn't seem very sensible.
Those who take the view that if one runway becomes blocked they'll just land on the other - and I've had the discussion with a senior level management pilot from a major carrier - obviously have never seen the chaos (albeit controlled) that ensues in a busy terminal area when not all the expected runways are available. And that's before considering the common failure modes that will make both runways unavailable - like JB's example of a fire in ATC. Still, the JARs permit it so it must be OK.....
Those who take the view that if one runway becomes blocked they'll just land on the other - and I've had the discussion with a senior level management pilot from a major carrier - obviously have never seen the chaos (albeit controlled) that ensues in a busy terminal area when not all the expected runways are available. And that's before considering the common failure modes that will make both runways unavailable - like JB's example of a fire in ATC. Still, the JARs permit it so it must be OK.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB007. I do get your point. Absolutely, and if you had LHR as the alternate and had taken 20 mins holding and then diverted to one of the aforementioned airports no big deal. If the airports were filling up rapidly and your fuel was going to become a serious issue then declare a fuel emergency. I still don't see the problem. Besides, only 9 aircraft diverted that day and the fire started at 0840 and was under control (ie: out at 0900) How many times has that happened in LHR in the last 20 years? I would guess that the only other times that LHR has closed has been in bad weather and on those days, hell you might even have AMS as your alternate. (I stand to be corrected though)
With regards to the FODCOM then take your 20 mins holding.
Betterfromabove. If you look carefully, I'm not saying you should plan to land with 30 mins final reserve fuel. You would still have a few hundred kilos extra for your alternate (LHR), your holding fuel (20 mins) and your contingency fuel.
Heathrow Director. The point of nominating LHR as the alternate is only to save fuel on days of fine weather and no operational problems. Of course if you have an emergency the Noise Abatement goes out the window.
With regards to the FODCOM then take your 20 mins holding.
Betterfromabove. If you look carefully, I'm not saying you should plan to land with 30 mins final reserve fuel. You would still have a few hundred kilos extra for your alternate (LHR), your holding fuel (20 mins) and your contingency fuel.
Heathrow Director. The point of nominating LHR as the alternate is only to save fuel on days of fine weather and no operational problems. Of course if you have an emergency the Noise Abatement goes out the window.