FUEL EMERGENCY at Dubai airport
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so you happily land with 4 tons in the Airbus or 4.5 in the 777?
Not quite sure why, in good weather and with a radar environment, you think landing with 45 minutes endurance remaining is particularly brave? Particularly with Sharjah right next door (if you have a fuel emergency they WILL take you) and half a dozen other runways in relatively close proximity throughout the approach.
I've been here longer than most and the lowest fuel I've had on touchdown was 4.6 tonnes after a 25 minute hold. In my experience I don't usually get a hold and if I do its rarely more than 15 minutes. And ATC as good as anywhere given the constraints they work with.
I would be disappointed if anyone declared a fuel emergency when it wasn't necessary and jumped the queue just to satisfy a misplaced sense of "superior airmanship". If it was that serious you should have diverted to SHJ, RAK or AAH from the hold 10 minutes ago. After all, the fuel required to get
to RAK, SHJ or DXB is pretty much equal from DESDI.
Believe me - if I think extra fuel may be needed I take it - and then some. But I get tired of guys blindly wanting to put on an extra tonne "for the rush hour" because its become common practice.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned previously, the company know that there are 2 peak arrival times, so why don't they just put on the fuel for holding in the CFP?Because they're just passing the buck and making us justify our decisions.
So yeah we play the game, and like NL3, I just take the fuel if adverse WX forecast, and not for "traffic" I've yet to divert due traffic, but am fully prepared to do so. Again, if enough aircraft divert, that will surly get the company's attention.
So yeah we play the game, and like NL3, I just take the fuel if adverse WX forecast, and not for "traffic" I've yet to divert due traffic, but am fully prepared to do so. Again, if enough aircraft divert, that will surly get the company's attention.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Fresh Air
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you guys are missing the point of this whole event. Yes, it is no problem finding a divert field close by. Yes, we fly right over Sharjah and can just dip in there. Yes, you shouldn't find yourself in that position and when fuel gets critical just divert.
The point is, if one is a good "soldier" and does not add the extra fuel at the outstation or wherever, then you will find yourself in this situation many times coming in at midnight. No one is trying to jump the queue, these guys are probably trying to adhere to the asinine fuel policy that our desk sitters are giving us. These guys landed with less than 3.0 on the Boeing.
Two things strike me about this event. One is, ask yourself how much longer duty and difficult it would be to divert to a non EK station. You have been on duty for 12 hours and now you are going to add another three or four hours? You will have to go in on your day off and explain why you didn't adhere to the fuel policy and "commit" to DXB.
Second, you will be called into the office if you constantly take more fuel so you don't have to divert or declare an emergency. And you will be called into the office to explain why you declared an emergency when you landed one kg over final reserve. "not really an emergency". Go ahead and divert and see what the next few days in DXB will be like for you, from having a chat with Safety, then the "chief pilots" and then maybe a little sim training for you, to fully understand the "commit" policy.
Let me ask you guys that are pimping all those that, in your esteemed opinion, are not managing their fuel and flight as well as should be. In your "vast" experience, how many airlines have you heard around the world declaring fuel emergencies? How many times at your other airlines have you landed with the "fuel qty low" msg staring you in the face? It's one thing to divert to an online airport. I have diverted a number of times at the old airline, due to unforeseen events at the destination. And it was never an issue because the diverts were online airports. Never even had to write any type of report. But those were unforeseen events-arriving at midnight here and having 15 miles in trail, turning final with 10 miles in trail seems to be the norm around here. Dispatchers should know that, but they are underpressure to flight plan for the least amount of fuel burn. They will have to explain why they added five tons of extra fuel when the wx was CAVOK.
We are being put in a "box" with regards to the fuel policy here. The good thing here is that you don't have to have an act of parliment to put on extra fuel. Don't jump into these guys kit when all they are doing is trying to adhere to EKs fuel policy as written and "enforced".
And if I am wrong about the consequences of diverting, taking extra fuel, and declaring an emergency, all I have to say is that is the perception of the enviornment here. But beats the consequences of an a/c in the dirt. Remember, the MAN guys got fired for a mistake that caused no immediate danger, reported it like they should, did the safe thing and went around, and was during a training enviornment.
The point is, if one is a good "soldier" and does not add the extra fuel at the outstation or wherever, then you will find yourself in this situation many times coming in at midnight. No one is trying to jump the queue, these guys are probably trying to adhere to the asinine fuel policy that our desk sitters are giving us. These guys landed with less than 3.0 on the Boeing.
Two things strike me about this event. One is, ask yourself how much longer duty and difficult it would be to divert to a non EK station. You have been on duty for 12 hours and now you are going to add another three or four hours? You will have to go in on your day off and explain why you didn't adhere to the fuel policy and "commit" to DXB.
Second, you will be called into the office if you constantly take more fuel so you don't have to divert or declare an emergency. And you will be called into the office to explain why you declared an emergency when you landed one kg over final reserve. "not really an emergency". Go ahead and divert and see what the next few days in DXB will be like for you, from having a chat with Safety, then the "chief pilots" and then maybe a little sim training for you, to fully understand the "commit" policy.
Let me ask you guys that are pimping all those that, in your esteemed opinion, are not managing their fuel and flight as well as should be. In your "vast" experience, how many airlines have you heard around the world declaring fuel emergencies? How many times at your other airlines have you landed with the "fuel qty low" msg staring you in the face? It's one thing to divert to an online airport. I have diverted a number of times at the old airline, due to unforeseen events at the destination. And it was never an issue because the diverts were online airports. Never even had to write any type of report. But those were unforeseen events-arriving at midnight here and having 15 miles in trail, turning final with 10 miles in trail seems to be the norm around here. Dispatchers should know that, but they are underpressure to flight plan for the least amount of fuel burn. They will have to explain why they added five tons of extra fuel when the wx was CAVOK.
We are being put in a "box" with regards to the fuel policy here. The good thing here is that you don't have to have an act of parliment to put on extra fuel. Don't jump into these guys kit when all they are doing is trying to adhere to EKs fuel policy as written and "enforced".
And if I am wrong about the consequences of diverting, taking extra fuel, and declaring an emergency, all I have to say is that is the perception of the enviornment here. But beats the consequences of an a/c in the dirt. Remember, the MAN guys got fired for a mistake that caused no immediate danger, reported it like they should, did the safe thing and went around, and was during a training enviornment.
Last edited by Panther 88; 31st May 2009 at 07:52.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panther - a year ago I would have said you were just being paranoid. Now I think you make a fair point.
As an aside if you do the maths I believe its much cheaper for the company to have an occasional diversion than to have every peak flight carry additional fuel.
Whether you care or not is up to you.
As an aside if you do the maths I believe its much cheaper for the company to have an occasional diversion than to have every peak flight carry additional fuel.
Whether you care or not is up to you.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't matter which company you are working for, or what type you are operating.
At the end of the day Emirates has given you Command of the aircraft. It is your responsibility to ensure the safety of the flight and it's passengers. If you decide to make an operational decision to carry 20mins extra fuel, because you KNOW you will need it you are doing your job.
If you leave the extra behind because it hasn't been given on the OFP, then you belong back in the R/H Seat.
At the end of the day Emirates has given you Command of the aircraft. It is your responsibility to ensure the safety of the flight and it's passengers. If you decide to make an operational decision to carry 20mins extra fuel, because you KNOW you will need it you are doing your job.
If you leave the extra behind because it hasn't been given on the OFP, then you belong back in the R/H Seat.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blingland
Age: 56
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely and well said CAVnotOK Habibi. Some of your should grow some balls and take the fuel you need, I have NEVER had to justify my decision to anyone' except myself and my colleague in the RHS. Learn the fuel policy and make command decisions, the company want you to do that. Don't rely on dispatchers to make YOUR decisions.
SyB
SyB
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sandy beach
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well said Panther, sums things up nicely. We all feel squeezed at almost every angle, every corner these days, but the fuel issue has been and will always be the exception for me. Remember when an ASR was written up for landing below CMR fuel?
I'm sure the company would love to have us commit on every landing to save money. I for one will not plan on doing mental math or cancelling a low fuel pump msg. after a 10 hour duty if I can avoid it. Never had a naughty extra fuel email yet...
I'm sure the company would love to have us commit on every landing to save money. I for one will not plan on doing mental math or cancelling a low fuel pump msg. after a 10 hour duty if I can avoid it. Never had a naughty extra fuel email yet...
Last edited by Saltaire; 31st May 2009 at 10:52.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: in a house
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the link.
http://www.gcaa.ae/en/ePublication/a...%20Inbound.pdf
There has been stuff written about fuel policy in the past explaining it better than the gobbledegook in the FOM.
Last draft of the OM-A didn't even feature a fuel policy.
The fools who file ASR's for landing with less than ALT+FINAL deserve the tea and biscuits they get.
The fools who arrive in DUbai with insufficient fuel, who find themselves HAVING to commit, deserve a boot too.
As the legal commander, you carry what YOU deem fit, not what fule policy gives as guidance.
If you are worried about a trip to see EGT and his bitch/midget sidekick for landing with too much fuel, consider the pile of manure you will find yourself in for landing with not enough....
http://www.gcaa.ae/en/ePublication/a...%20Inbound.pdf
There has been stuff written about fuel policy in the past explaining it better than the gobbledegook in the FOM.
Last draft of the OM-A didn't even feature a fuel policy.
The fools who file ASR's for landing with less than ALT+FINAL deserve the tea and biscuits they get.
The fools who arrive in DUbai with insufficient fuel, who find themselves HAVING to commit, deserve a boot too.
As the legal commander, you carry what YOU deem fit, not what fule policy gives as guidance.
If you are worried about a trip to see EGT and his bitch/midget sidekick for landing with too much fuel, consider the pile of manure you will find yourself in for landing with not enough....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you decide to make an operational decision to carry 20mins extra fuel, because you KNOW you will need it you are doing your job.
What you do as a captain is up to you - to be honest I'm really explaining my point of view for the benefit of any FO I might operate with.
EK aren't bad with regards to fuel - you never will be taken to task for taking extra fuel unless you get really silly about it, so it doesn't take any balls to take it.
Many long haul carriers routinely don't carry alternate fuel (albeit with caveats).
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NL3,
I agree with what you are saying. My point is that for guys who know they need the gas, but don't upload due to a real, or perceived Co. pressure are not doing their job as Commander.
You have a method, and a plan of how much you are happy to arrive with based on experience. Some people unfortunately don't seem to have the same to fall back on.
Experience cannot be bought or acquired overnight, much to EK's dismay.
I agree with what you are saying. My point is that for guys who know they need the gas, but don't upload due to a real, or perceived Co. pressure are not doing their job as Commander.
You have a method, and a plan of how much you are happy to arrive with based on experience. Some people unfortunately don't seem to have the same to fall back on.
Experience cannot be bought or acquired overnight, much to EK's dismay.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also think it's important to point out that the 30 Minutes fuel on the flight plan is calculated with level flight at 1500 feet at holding speed over the aerodrome in standard conditions at planned landing weight for alternate.
When you hit the TOGA levers, the time period that fuel gives is considerably less than that!
Also the guidance in the QRH for Go Arounds with Fuel low level warnings
"Avoid high nose up attitude and excessive
acceleration or deceleration. This prevents
forward pumps from uncovering."
indicates the manufacturer doesn't garantee fuel feed with large nose up attitudes assosiated with a standard go around at low weights.
I don't think it's clever to intend arriving in such a fuel state, different if it occurs through situations that couldn't be planned for.
When you hit the TOGA levers, the time period that fuel gives is considerably less than that!
Also the guidance in the QRH for Go Arounds with Fuel low level warnings
"Avoid high nose up attitude and excessive
acceleration or deceleration. This prevents
forward pumps from uncovering."
indicates the manufacturer doesn't garantee fuel feed with large nose up attitudes assosiated with a standard go around at low weights.
I don't think it's clever to intend arriving in such a fuel state, different if it occurs through situations that couldn't be planned for.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Fresh Air
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cavnotok, You are still missing the point. You are blaming pilots for operational inadequacies of our operation. EK flight plans you for what they deem is appropriate fuel. Supposedly they have looked at all factors for your destination and historical data with regards to wx and delays. If the flight planning is accurate, one should never need to take extra fuel, unless something is unusual in the air. So is that the case? You tell me. If you are adding fuel, even a ton or two, then the flight planning falls short of being ....(fill in your own word).
Now with regards to experience. My experience, all 30plus years in a cockpit tells me that the flight plan I am given should be accurate and correct. Is that the case here? Secondly, I know a number of captains that have been called in to explain their fuel additions. Thirdly, why is there even a commit policy at all. That tells me that the desk sitters want us to fly around with minimum fuel and land at the hub, not divert if the wx is good. Fourth, imagine being called into the office to explain your emergency call when you landed (barely) above FR. The reason we don't have evenings like the other night is because most everyone is carrying more than what is deemed on the flight plan, because none of us want to be put into that box. But if you regularly follow our fuel guidelines to the letter, trying to be the good soldier, you will be diverting regularly-but then why didn't you "commit".........it goes on and on.
We agree that commanders need to be commanders. No arguement there. I am saying that the company is putting you in situations that one does not need to be put in. YOU as the commander have to mitigate the situation. The operation here is at fault, not the LHS. I will ask again, how often at your previous airlines did you ever land with "fuel qty. low" lights glaring you in the face? But if you adhere to the fuel policy, as written and as operated" that will be a fact of life here. Have at it son, take the fuel they give you and "commit". The fact of the matter is, you shouldn't have to worry about it. At every other airline I have ever flown at, when you hit reserve fuel-you are gone man. Done, no turning back, no commit bs, no "you're number one now"....you are done. That's not how it is here. Commit, commit, commit.......
I just looked up the actual meaning of commit:
Commit v. (committed, committing) 1. carry out a crime etc. 2. pledge to do something. 3. entrust; send to prison or psychiatric hospital.
No more commentis needed.
Now with regards to experience. My experience, all 30plus years in a cockpit tells me that the flight plan I am given should be accurate and correct. Is that the case here? Secondly, I know a number of captains that have been called in to explain their fuel additions. Thirdly, why is there even a commit policy at all. That tells me that the desk sitters want us to fly around with minimum fuel and land at the hub, not divert if the wx is good. Fourth, imagine being called into the office to explain your emergency call when you landed (barely) above FR. The reason we don't have evenings like the other night is because most everyone is carrying more than what is deemed on the flight plan, because none of us want to be put into that box. But if you regularly follow our fuel guidelines to the letter, trying to be the good soldier, you will be diverting regularly-but then why didn't you "commit".........it goes on and on.
We agree that commanders need to be commanders. No arguement there. I am saying that the company is putting you in situations that one does not need to be put in. YOU as the commander have to mitigate the situation. The operation here is at fault, not the LHS. I will ask again, how often at your previous airlines did you ever land with "fuel qty. low" lights glaring you in the face? But if you adhere to the fuel policy, as written and as operated" that will be a fact of life here. Have at it son, take the fuel they give you and "commit". The fact of the matter is, you shouldn't have to worry about it. At every other airline I have ever flown at, when you hit reserve fuel-you are gone man. Done, no turning back, no commit bs, no "you're number one now"....you are done. That's not how it is here. Commit, commit, commit.......
I just looked up the actual meaning of commit:
Commit v. (committed, committing) 1. carry out a crime etc. 2. pledge to do something. 3. entrust; send to prison or psychiatric hospital.
No more commentis needed.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Panther,
Everything you are saying is correct. However, if the flight planning in this Mickey Mouse outfit that calls itself a major airline is forcing guys into a situation where the Fuel Quantity Low is shining bright in your face, then unfortunately the Pilots must step up and mitigate the scenario from taking place.
Proactive rather than Reactive.
And you are right......it is 100% the fault of the Company. I have never seen anything like it anywhere or time in my career.
Everything you are saying is correct. However, if the flight planning in this Mickey Mouse outfit that calls itself a major airline is forcing guys into a situation where the Fuel Quantity Low is shining bright in your face, then unfortunately the Pilots must step up and mitigate the scenario from taking place.
Proactive rather than Reactive.
And you are right......it is 100% the fault of the Company. I have never seen anything like it anywhere or time in my career.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In Fresh Air
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEY WE AGREE>>>I believe we were trying to say the same thing, just differently. Take the gas and when you land with what would have been less than Final Reserve, if you had not added the gas, file an ASR. As Mr. Ed said in our, er, "meetings" they can't do anything about anything if it is not documented. We should be glad that gas is easily added around here.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeahbutyeahbutyeahbut...
I'm a bit uncomfortable about appearing to be an apologist for the company but I feel the need to provide some balancing comments.
For those who remember our old policy the provision to commit to a destination clause in the "new" policy provided a welcome option to avoid being forced into a diversion to the alternate once min diversion fuel was reached. This avoided the illogical situation where you were then "committed to alternate" which usually left you in a less safe position with more unknowns at an unfamiliar airport. Its actually a good option.
Regarding uncovering the fwd fuel pumps - are you sure this isn't more to avoid damaging the pumps?
I'm a bit uncomfortable about appearing to be an apologist for the company but I feel the need to provide some balancing comments.
For those who remember our old policy the provision to commit to a destination clause in the "new" policy provided a welcome option to avoid being forced into a diversion to the alternate once min diversion fuel was reached. This avoided the illogical situation where you were then "committed to alternate" which usually left you in a less safe position with more unknowns at an unfamiliar airport. Its actually a good option.
Regarding uncovering the fwd fuel pumps - are you sure this isn't more to avoid damaging the pumps?