More flying on fumes at EK
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antman : Sequence over DESDI
Antman: Point - totally agree! In an ideal world we would apply schemes called VSOPS (variable speed operations) and collaborative decision making to speed you up or slow you down in order to manage the flow rate into and out of DESDI. We have all the tools and the people with the know-how to use them. In the real world neither the Iranians, nor Bahrainis, nor UAE (AUH) will play with us or communicate their intentions/restrictions/anticipated flow rates. And once you are one or two hours out (and just IF the relevant ATC cooperates) the delta between MEC and Mmo won't give us enough room to maneouvre to spread the stack out evenly. We have begged for the second inbound hold beyond DESDI for ages. But the biggest unlighted obstacle in Middle East aviation (R.J. AUH ATC) has his own agenda. Well ... If you think the status quo is bad ... wait until Jebel Ali opens.
Last edited by MrMachfivepointfive; 14th Jun 2009 at 17:41.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so at the end of the day it is the Captains decision how much fuel goes on the aircraft. You obviously are accountable for it but if you have good reason then no problem.
I will read all the new rules and explanations so that I know what the company thinks, then I will continue to do what I have always done:
RAMP - TAXI - TRIP = FUEL AT DESTINATION : if this isn't enough in your eyes taking into account weather, time of arrival ie amount of traffic expected, how much contingency they have given, en route weather etc etc - there are so many variables, then put some extra fuel on ie work it the other way:
FUEL AT DESTINATION + TRIP + TAXI = RAMP
I hardly rarely take extra fuel, but if I need to I will. As long as I can justify it then fine! Maybe not high tech but it works.
I will read all the new rules and explanations so that I know what the company thinks, then I will continue to do what I have always done:
RAMP - TAXI - TRIP = FUEL AT DESTINATION : if this isn't enough in your eyes taking into account weather, time of arrival ie amount of traffic expected, how much contingency they have given, en route weather etc etc - there are so many variables, then put some extra fuel on ie work it the other way:
FUEL AT DESTINATION + TRIP + TAXI = RAMP
I hardly rarely take extra fuel, but if I need to I will. As long as I can justify it then fine! Maybe not high tech but it works.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with minicooper. On days when weather or some other factor is an issue, I gas up as much as I deem necessary - and in 90%, probably 99%, of such cases, the guys in Dispatch have beaten me to the punch and stuck the extra fuel on the flight plan already.
I've offloaded cargo on a few (admittedly rare) occasions, and never had to fight Load Control to get my way, because there was a good reason to be carrying the extra fuel and they could see it too.
The proposed re-clearance flights are NOT such flights, and on days when weather or traffic or any other factor become an issue, or if the stats for the flights in question change, I'd say the guys in Dispatch will have upped the fuel long before you get to the airport.
As I said in my earlier post(s), there should be no real reason for increased tension on the flight deck - you'll still divert with exactly the same fuel remaining as you would have done if you'd been carrying ten tonnes more. You'll just be doing so 'n' minutes earlier. And if you get to MITEX (or wherever) and find you don't have sufficient fuel to bypass your enroute alternate - (and that figure is clearly spelled out for you on the flight plan) - you land at Bahrain (or wherever) and stick whatever extra fuel you require on.
I've offloaded cargo on a few (admittedly rare) occasions, and never had to fight Load Control to get my way, because there was a good reason to be carrying the extra fuel and they could see it too.
The proposed re-clearance flights are NOT such flights, and on days when weather or traffic or any other factor become an issue, or if the stats for the flights in question change, I'd say the guys in Dispatch will have upped the fuel long before you get to the airport.
As I said in my earlier post(s), there should be no real reason for increased tension on the flight deck - you'll still divert with exactly the same fuel remaining as you would have done if you'd been carrying ten tonnes more. You'll just be doing so 'n' minutes earlier. And if you get to MITEX (or wherever) and find you don't have sufficient fuel to bypass your enroute alternate - (and that figure is clearly spelled out for you on the flight plan) - you land at Bahrain (or wherever) and stick whatever extra fuel you require on.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near water
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTOW, any formal flow control (slots) into, and out of, DXB are blocked by the VERY upper management of EK. As this person is also on the board of the GCAA and DXB DCA, any attempts to implement this will be shot down. Somewhere along the way the difference between open-skies and ATFM got lost.
5.5, whereas ACC has some inbound restrictions, the flow rate via the two inbound gates are determined by DXB DCA (APP) and then communicated to ACC. The determination of the flow rate is based on a myriad of factors. The fact that about eighty percent of the traffic into DXB are heavy (wake), makes for a bigger landing interval. If you want to open a flow rate dialogue with someone, start with them. Dialogue with the Iranians are forbidden as you probably know.
Antman, your idea is a very good one. Only problem is all the other operators who arrive in the middle of all this. Even if EK has the majority of flights through the gates, the remaining twenty percent are enough to derail the whole thing. 3 mins @ 250IAS = ±12NM. Even with ten mile spacing it's not enough and leaves zero margin for "errore calculi". Add in the Russians and the subcontinental airlines... This can be fixed by booking and inbound slot, but I refer you back to the first paragraph.
In short, any attempt by the GCAA to rectify the situation inside the UAE FIR and DXB airport are blocked by one person who sits on the board of EK, GCAA and DXB DCA. That should narrow it down a little.
Feel free to PM me for more info.
5.5, whereas ACC has some inbound restrictions, the flow rate via the two inbound gates are determined by DXB DCA (APP) and then communicated to ACC. The determination of the flow rate is based on a myriad of factors. The fact that about eighty percent of the traffic into DXB are heavy (wake), makes for a bigger landing interval. If you want to open a flow rate dialogue with someone, start with them. Dialogue with the Iranians are forbidden as you probably know.
Antman, your idea is a very good one. Only problem is all the other operators who arrive in the middle of all this. Even if EK has the majority of flights through the gates, the remaining twenty percent are enough to derail the whole thing. 3 mins @ 250IAS = ±12NM. Even with ten mile spacing it's not enough and leaves zero margin for "errore calculi". Add in the Russians and the subcontinental airlines... This can be fixed by booking and inbound slot, but I refer you back to the first paragraph.
In short, any attempt by the GCAA to rectify the situation inside the UAE FIR and DXB airport are blocked by one person who sits on the board of EK, GCAA and DXB DCA. That should narrow it down a little.
Feel free to PM me for more info.
