No holding fuel?!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it;
Statcon is based on 95% (I think, don't have the paperwork to hand) of flights using the given contingency fuel for the specific flight. Therefore, you should expect to use ALL of the Cont fuel in 95% of your flights on the specific sector.
You should, therefore, expect to land with 30 mins reserve plus Alt fuel.
If there are further delays and you have to commit or divert, you will have less.
If there's weather forecast in DXB, you are often given additional fuel anyway. If not, do what you're paid for and make a sensible decision!
It's not rocket surgery
Statcon is based on 95% (I think, don't have the paperwork to hand) of flights using the given contingency fuel for the specific flight. Therefore, you should expect to use ALL of the Cont fuel in 95% of your flights on the specific sector.
You should, therefore, expect to land with 30 mins reserve plus Alt fuel.
If there are further delays and you have to commit or divert, you will have less.
If there's weather forecast in DXB, you are often given additional fuel anyway. If not, do what you're paid for and make a sensible decision!
It's not rocket surgery
Last edited by helen-damnation; 13th Aug 2012 at 12:43.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC should not have given him priority, they should have asked him for his diversion field, and sent him on his way.
If there is ambiguity about an emergency i.e. the information is unclear about exactly what on-board situation exists, surely we should take the safest action?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No- it's not.
I don't really understand your point of view. He was asked TWICE "are you declaring an emergency?" to which he replied "I don't have fuel to hold".
According to you, what should happen at this point? It seems from your posts that you are saying that at this point, ATC should take operational control from the captain and send him to his diversion field? Please read the transcript, accident report etc. from the Avianca accident.
Maybe "I don't have fuel to hold" means he still has 50mins in the tanks.
Maybe "I don't have fuel to hold" means he is on vapour.
Maybe "I don't have fuel to hold" means he finds himself in a sticky situation by not having enough fuel for any delay, but without having the balls to declare an emergency, and that if he waffles on the frequency for long enough, ATC will step up and declare for him, so he is off the hook.
I guarantee that if ATC have to declare on his behalf, he will be having tea and biccies.
I can also guarantee that if in this situation, he was put in the hold and not given any priority and ploughed in due fuel starvation, not only would a lot of unnecessary deaths occur, but some ATC type would be in a world of hurt.
Declaring on his behalf is not making a decision for him; it's taking an unsafe, ambiguous situation and making it safe. It's quite possible that he was trying to declare the Italian equivalent of "minimum fuel" or "pan" or "get me down now". He didn't interrupt the emergency process once it was started- which would indicate to me that he was happy for it to proceed. If he thought it was a clever way to jump the queue- he has another thing coming.
I don't really understand your point of view. He was asked TWICE "are you declaring an emergency?" to which he replied "I don't have fuel to hold".
According to you, what should happen at this point? It seems from your posts that you are saying that at this point, ATC should take operational control from the captain and send him to his diversion field? Please read the transcript, accident report etc. from the Avianca accident.
Maybe "I don't have fuel to hold" means he still has 50mins in the tanks.
Maybe "I don't have fuel to hold" means he is on vapour.
Maybe "I don't have fuel to hold" means he finds himself in a sticky situation by not having enough fuel for any delay, but without having the balls to declare an emergency, and that if he waffles on the frequency for long enough, ATC will step up and declare for him, so he is off the hook.
I guarantee that if ATC have to declare on his behalf, he will be having tea and biccies.
I can also guarantee that if in this situation, he was put in the hold and not given any priority and ploughed in due fuel starvation, not only would a lot of unnecessary deaths occur, but some ATC type would be in a world of hurt.
Declaring on his behalf is not making a decision for him; it's taking an unsafe, ambiguous situation and making it safe. It's quite possible that he was trying to declare the Italian equivalent of "minimum fuel" or "pan" or "get me down now". He didn't interrupt the emergency process once it was started- which would indicate to me that he was happy for it to proceed. If he thought it was a clever way to jump the queue- he has another thing coming.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was there for the first part of his exchange with ATC. My memory is vague but he was given an EAT some 45 minutes or so down the line and he said he could not hold for that long. I don't recall him saying that he could not hold at all, although that info may have come out after we left the frequency.
ATC immediately climbed into him saying that the ONLY way they could help him was if he declared an emergency. This guy was battling with english and ATC was not the friendliest out(I know....lots of pressure, etc). Not sure what transpired after that other than the fact that he was on APP freq shortly after us with ATC demanding to know if he needed 12 straight in or if he could still fly 80 track miles.
As for the fuel policy, seems pretty simple to me. Hold for as long as you can then divert or commit. If committing and you still get further delays declare an emergency and land. I stand to be corrected but I doubt any of our crew has ever been been disciplined or punished for declaring an emergency due to low fuel when operating to the book?
Personally, I like statcon. I means the company is using their wealth of data of when there is likely to be issues vs my severely limited hit & miss experiences of a bit of holding at midnight.
ATC immediately climbed into him saying that the ONLY way they could help him was if he declared an emergency. This guy was battling with english and ATC was not the friendliest out(I know....lots of pressure, etc). Not sure what transpired after that other than the fact that he was on APP freq shortly after us with ATC demanding to know if he needed 12 straight in or if he could still fly 80 track miles.
As for the fuel policy, seems pretty simple to me. Hold for as long as you can then divert or commit. If committing and you still get further delays declare an emergency and land. I stand to be corrected but I doubt any of our crew has ever been been disciplined or punished for declaring an emergency due to low fuel when operating to the book?
Personally, I like statcon. I means the company is using their wealth of data of when there is likely to be issues vs my severely limited hit & miss experiences of a bit of holding at midnight.
Last edited by Kennytheking; 13th Aug 2012 at 16:40.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this debate would be solved by a clearer statement from the controller;
"Italian Man, if you cannot hold and require to land in Dubai immediately, you must declare an emergency for priority. Otherwise you must hold, or we can offer vectors to your nominated alternate."
Would that not clarify things if this or something similar was adopted as an SOP response to the "can't hold" call?
"Italian Man, if you cannot hold and require to land in Dubai immediately, you must declare an emergency for priority. Otherwise you must hold, or we can offer vectors to your nominated alternate."
Would that not clarify things if this or something similar was adopted as an SOP response to the "can't hold" call?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Italian Man, if you cannot hold and require to land in Dubai immediately, you must declare an emergency for priority. Otherwise you must hold, or we can offer vectors to your nominated alternate."
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or does the thread have a tone that it is BAD airmanship to add extra fuel in addition to stratcon even with CAVOK?
Recently had a 600kg (5min) stratcon flight on a cavok day. Like good little chaps we took OFP fuel. Unexpected long taxi and ground delay, that 600 kg contingency plus taxi fuel was already gone at gear up.
Recently had a 600kg (5min) stratcon flight on a cavok day. Like good little chaps we took OFP fuel. Unexpected long taxi and ground delay, that 600 kg contingency plus taxi fuel was already gone at gear up.
Last edited by 8sugarsugar; 14th Aug 2012 at 01:55.
Sounds to me like on the one hand you have ATC acting conservatively when faced with a communication problem on the subject of how little fuel remained in the aircraft. With Avianca in mind, they opted to route the aircraft directly in. Everyone's happy, except...
...On the other hand you have some "hometown" crew who's noses are bent out of shape because they automatically think he was trying to get clever and queue-jump, ignoring the fact that enroute diversions or unplanned FL assignments could have affected his burn so as to arrive in the fuel state he did i.e. unable to hold until EAT 45 minutes later.
So the controller's choice is to "stop fiddling around with the language barrier and work him in so as not to risk an Avianca accident" vs. "risk being bad-mouthed in a few cockpits containing Figjams who go through life thinking everyone else is doing it wrong or suspiciously, and will even later try and tell me how to do my job".
I'm no controller, but I sure know which choice I would make every single time and still sleep at night like a baby.
...On the other hand you have some "hometown" crew who's noses are bent out of shape because they automatically think he was trying to get clever and queue-jump, ignoring the fact that enroute diversions or unplanned FL assignments could have affected his burn so as to arrive in the fuel state he did i.e. unable to hold until EAT 45 minutes later.
So the controller's choice is to "stop fiddling around with the language barrier and work him in so as not to risk an Avianca accident" vs. "risk being bad-mouthed in a few cockpits containing Figjams who go through life thinking everyone else is doing it wrong or suspiciously, and will even later try and tell me how to do my job".
I'm no controller, but I sure know which choice I would make every single time and still sleep at night like a baby.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I do think it is poor airmanship to take extra fuel if you do not have a good reason to do so!!!!
You could have burned 2 tons in the taxi, completely UNforseen, and still went flying. Yes, you would have to stop enroute, but that is the companies decision!!
The fuel policy is the same. You can commit (smartly) and never be in an unsafe position.
Provided the policy is safe and your decision making is sound there are no issues.
The bigger issue is what happens when 2 or 3 airplanes divert. Does the crew, all of whom are flying max hours, elect to go onto discretion or not?
You could have burned 2 tons in the taxi, completely UNforseen, and still went flying. Yes, you would have to stop enroute, but that is the companies decision!!
The fuel policy is the same. You can commit (smartly) and never be in an unsafe position.
Provided the policy is safe and your decision making is sound there are no issues.
The bigger issue is what happens when 2 or 3 airplanes divert. Does the crew, all of whom are flying max hours, elect to go onto discretion or not?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8sugarsugar
"stratcon"? Is that one level above or below defcom?
Piss taking aside, no, that's not the impression I'm getting from the thread. What I do get the impression of however, is that a minority of Captains struggle with making some basic common sense decisions when it comes to fuel requirements. Those that struggle with this should consider whether the daily responsibilities of command are really suited to them!
"stratcon"? Is that one level above or below defcom?
Piss taking aside, no, that's not the impression I'm getting from the thread. What I do get the impression of however, is that a minority of Captains struggle with making some basic common sense decisions when it comes to fuel requirements. Those that struggle with this should consider whether the daily responsibilities of command are really suited to them!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.............................
The issue seems to be more the LACK of ICAO English than shortage of fuel
Besides that: Statcon works just fine. Bad WX ------> Take MORE fuel. Good WX, loads of runways ------> Commit!
And I love this statement
by Sugarpuff! It's what contingency is FOR. Look the word up in the Oxford English
PS I used this same fuel policy long before coming to EK; none of my colleagues crashed out of the sky then - as they aren't now!!!!
The issue seems to be more the LACK of ICAO English than shortage of fuel
Besides that: Statcon works just fine. Bad WX ------> Take MORE fuel. Good WX, loads of runways ------> Commit!
And I love this statement
Recently had a 600kg (5min) stratcon flight on a cavok day. Like good little chaps we took OFP fuel. Unexpected long taxi and ground delay, that 600 kg contingency plus taxi fuel was already gone at gear up.
PS I used this same fuel policy long before coming to EK; none of my colleagues crashed out of the sky then - as they aren't now!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Pilot Grinder
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hell guys, being a commander is what this is all about, use your brain!
EK own the show but they are also not interested in a Captain making stupid decisions.
Carry it if you need it, go with the plan if it makes sense and never compromise your judgement if you are unsure.
As above, a lot of carriers have been doing this stuff for years... no hull losses I can recall from fuel exhaustion.
Maybe this is why we are having so many upgrade failures???? Decision making.
EK own the show but they are also not interested in a Captain making stupid decisions.
Carry it if you need it, go with the plan if it makes sense and never compromise your judgement if you are unsure.
As above, a lot of carriers have been doing this stuff for years... no hull losses I can recall from fuel exhaustion.
Maybe this is why we are having so many upgrade failures???? Decision making.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA(UK) Safety Notice-2102/11 Low Fuel Holding procedures and Associated Radio
Document from the UK CAA answers some queries placed on this thread. Procedural information on how how ATC will respond is informative and worth knowing CAA ( UK) Safety Notice 20120 11 Low Fuel Holding procedures and Associated Radio Telephony Phraseology
Good to see that finally "No Holding" in the UK actually does mean no holding ( and not up to 20 min )
How many years before the GCAA catch on and do the same here in Dubai.
Good to see that finally "No Holding" in the UK actually does mean no holding ( and not up to 20 min )
How many years before the GCAA catch on and do the same here in Dubai.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always liked the "standard" delay 10-15 that you get going into Heathrow, much simpler than lots of EAT's. Obviously there us a time for EAT's but a lot of the time a simple 10 minute delay is enough for us to plan.
Makes sense. Personally whenever I issue a hold into OMDB I just read the delay time off the screen be it 5 or 50 minutes as it saves the obvious question as to how long. Also allows me to mentally plan is a long leg length is available when that question follows.
As for delays, has the Emirates internal 'flow' control kicked in yet? I read on here it was to start soon. Winter is right around the corner and the delays are already 40+ of a night time.
As for delays, has the Emirates internal 'flow' control kicked in yet? I read on here it was to start soon. Winter is right around the corner and the delays are already 40+ of a night time.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Dubai
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the AIC states 30mins holding should be carried into the UAE, not 20 mins.
fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry out the subsequent .... landing......and .... hold for 30 minutes delay.
fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry out the subsequent .... landing......and .... hold for 30 minutes delay.
The fuel policy is actually straightforward. It's a little disturbing that so many people don't seem to understand it.
Good to see that finally "No Holding" in the UK actually does mean no holding ( and not up to 20 min )
Deviate, of that I am aware but Emirates are allegedly spacing their arrivals at some time soon. When the airport can handle max 35 arrivals an hour (excluding B watch) and Emirates often schedule 30+ all by themselves, something has to give even before playing the Brass Razoo.