Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Middle East
Reload this Page >

No holding fuel?!

Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

No holding fuel?!

Old 12th Aug 2012, 19:40
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No holding fuel?!

Was in the DESDI hold the other night, along with many other colleagues and in the throes of committing to destination with an EAT when in barrels an Italian sounding fellow who rankled quite severely upon being given an EAT himself. "I donna hav a da fuel to hold...!!" The local controller then asked "Are you declaring a fuel emergency?" The reply given was "I got no fuel to hold....." ie he had planned to arrive with nothing extra. He was immediately taken out of the hold and vectored for an approach with the controller declaring to all and sundry that there was emergency traffic. A controller change was made and the expat controller then questioned whether or not he was declaring an emergency. He again stated that he had no holding fuel and the controller declared an emergency on his behalf.....pound to a penny there were many of us who were in the hold on STATCONT fuel and were beginning to sweat a little. Surely if you pitch up into a holding situation without ANY fuel to hold then you simply accept your diversion? Or am I being too simplistic and hard on the guy all at the same time? His priority was now threatening everybody who had - or were about to -commit. Cant help wondering what effect will be with one or two emergencies declared when the entire stack is all on STATCON fuel and committed to DXB...

Why is a no-holding-fuel situation being seen as an emergency when he must have been carrying alternate fuel for just such an event? Couldnt help but feel cheated and ended up landing with 6 tonne in a 388 as a result......or about 10 minutes to final reserve. The midnight hold is just going to get worse and worse. Couldnt believe the controllers decision to declare an emergency on his part, either.

I understand that diverting is merely committing to another runway but you just dont pitch up into a known busy environment with no extra fuel and expect priority when you still have alternate fuel...not good airmanship. If you dont plan for it then why should you get the special treatment? Do others echo this sentiment or am I being too harsh? Discuss.
captainsmiffy is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2012, 19:50
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Potentially and / or evidently not familiar with UAE / GCAA / AIC #4 2006 / AEROPLANES INBOUND TO THE UAE WITH FUEL RESERVES APPROACHING MINIMUM and in particular section 3 of that same AIC.
Old King Coal is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2012, 20:19
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aaaahhhh.....

One of the only PDF's not to be included in the the new electronic FCOM's

(could have been so simple really)
Craggenmore is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2012, 20:48
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
He didnt do anything wrong, and ATC obliged
You really think so? Why don't you give it a try next time? After all, you can always plead that you didn't do anything wrong, and that it was all ATCs idea. Go on.
ferris is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2012, 23:46
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any idea what type of aircraft was involved?
Mercenary Pilot is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 04:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One of the only PDF's not to be included in the the new electronic FCOM's


It's been NOTAM'ed for quite some time...
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 05:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just for the sake of balance, I did a 14 hr ULR back into DXB last week with 1% statcon, we chocked on with the 1% and a couple of hundred kilos extra, I'm sure it had nothing to do with flying a bit faster than the single digit CI or descending faster than ECON
falconeasydriver is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 06:34
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You didn't get my post at all did you ironbutt57..!
Craggenmore is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 06:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have witnessed KLM do exactly the same as the rest of us got hour over Desdi for our 'airmanship'.
He plonked in, declared he couldn't hold AT ALL. I had a giggle and thought 'he"s off to Abu Daabi', but nope, straight into 12L.
Sonny Hammond is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 06:44
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not talking about DXB in particular but most of us mere mortals normally end up over destination, with BOF to alternate plus 30 mins holding. These figures obviously include the approach and the missed approach segments.
So, what exactly is the suggestion here. That NO MATTER what the situation, if one is headed towards DXB, one MUST carry extra fuel towards any anticipated delay over DXB?
If so be the case, why would the respective company(s) not include the 'anticipated extra fuel' requirment in the CFP. Anything below burn off to alternate plus 30 mins hold fuel(min fuel) and i'm already committing myself to land in DXB. Which means that if I decide to divert with min fuel from destination, I will be very close to declaring a Mayday when I arrive over alternate to land. NO delays acceptable.
So what is the suggestion of this AIC. That I burn off my 30 odd mins hold fuel over DXB instead and then have an aircraft get stuck on runway during single rwy ops and then.....????!
And what would the suggested extra fuel be per flight. Or is it a variable.
And what BTW is 'statcon' fuel.
Thanks.
Germanflyer is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 08:13
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, ATC don't have any questions to answer. The "Italian" captain has questions to answer. How much messing around should ATC go thru in order to determine if it's an "Avianca"-type event? He was asked TWICE if it was an emergency, without responding that IT WAS NOT. From wikipedia, 'aftermath' of Avianca...
"Aftermath

After some deliberations, a settlement was reached in which the United States paid for around 40% of the settlements with the passengers and their families; the rest was paid by Avianca.[1]

Following Flight 52, air traffic controllers were more conservative in determining if Avianca flights were running low on fuel and required priority landing. On June 22, 1990, a Boeing 727 was immediately cleared to land when the pilot declared a minimum fuel situation. In another instance, on August 4, 1990, controllers declared a fuel emergency for the pilot due to confusion over the remaining fuel. The jet landed with 2 more flying hours to spare.[6]"

So which is worse? To put 'some noses out of joint' with a queue-jump? Or have another language-based disaster?

If you don't think there are any consequences for the Capt. after a queue-jump...as I have suggested, give it a try sometime.
ferris is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 08:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: where I lay my hat
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think ATC acted appropriately. They could have continued to quiz the pilot whether it was destination holding or alternate holding (final reserve) fuel that he was running short of, up against a language barrier, and with the fuel continuing to burn - or they could err on the side of caution and bring him in and ask questions later. I suspect ATC declared an emergency on their behalf to ensure the incident was made official, and they didn't queue jump without having to do a lot of form filling and tough question answering from both authorities.

Last edited by midnight cruiser; 13th Aug 2012 at 13:15.
midnight cruiser is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 09:07
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can you justify burning into your destination reserves(ie the 30 mins reserved for alternate holding), and NOT advising ATC that you have 'no holding fuel'.
I think if he was below his reserve fuel(alt+30 mins), he is completely within his right to say he has no holding fuel. And not declaring a Mayday either.
Only qualifier would be that now,s since ATC would not give him priority, it would become the ATC headache to make sure he has a more or less confirmed landing at his destination. Whatever that might be.
Germanflyer is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 09:43
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It seems that the only complaint here is that somebody jumped the queue and that bent your nose out of shape.

Bless.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 10:34
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At the end of the day there is a GCAA issued AIC stating the required fuel which this guy apparently didn't have.

Thats the issue and he should've been required to divert to an airport he did have fuel for.
If there wasn't one, it's an emergency and would be handled as such.
Sonny Hammond is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 11:05
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Contacted- I, and everyone else who has existed in the ME environment, knows full well the blame game is inappropriate, but is the reality. However, after this statement
We should not accept a situation where neither the pilot or the controller is sure whether an emergency exists or not. "Just to be safe, let him go ahead and land." Not good enough! When aircraft are carrying 100s of passengers who should rightly expect better.
What are you saying should happen? I'm really interested to know what those who think ATC did wrong here think should happen.
1.) Should ATC spend time- when it must be busy (holding)- trying to determine exactly what the english-not-great pilot means when after being asked the second time if he is declaring an emergency that "I have no fuel for holding"? Is he saying he needs to land immediately (as in the Avianca accident), but under pressure he is having trouble conveying that?
2.) Should ATC, believing there is scope for an Avianca-like event, and unable to get a clear response from the pilot that THAT IS NOT THE CASE within a reasonable time/effort framework, declare on his behalf and jump him in and deal with the Capts issue ( I am trying to make this clear here- when asked ARE YOU DECLARING AN EMERGENCY? and your answer is anything other than AFFIRMATIVE or NEGATIVE, then it's the captains issue and YES, the pax down the back deserve better) when he is safe on the ground?
3.) Should ATC, without hearing the words "I am declaring an emergency" just put him in the stack and proceed as normal, regardless of whatever else is said?

In this case, there was no ambiguity, the controller declared an emergency on his behalf, and proceeded accordingly. From an ATC point of view- very well done. Turned an ambiguous, possibly deadly situation into a positively handled, routine situation. All ended well, except for the monday quarterbacks now bitching about whether ATC handled it correctly.
Up to somebody else how that Captain is handled once the parking brake is on.

Last edited by ferris; 13th Aug 2012 at 11:08. Reason: Brake is different to break
ferris is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 11:13
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LR3

Going to disagree with you on that one. Firstly, you mention weather. Statcon or not, you take more fuel for situations such as that. Statcon does not cover for weather as it's a variable and the Company have clearly stated that.

Secondly, the chance of Statcon ever giving you less than 20 minutes is impossible. Even if you were to take a minimum contingency, you'll often have at least 20 minutes by virtue of your alternate fuel. If we were using the old fuel policy, we'd have to divert when we reached alternate plus final reserve. Now we can decide if committing is appropriate.

So, before we all start jumping on our high horses and spout emotional dribble, a few minutes reading and Understanding the fuel policy might be time better spent!

Just editing to add to ferris's post. I agree with your comments. I just hope that this Italian wasn't using an Emirates callsign!

Last edited by BYMONEK; 13th Aug 2012 at 11:18.
BYMONEK is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 11:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The FCI is quite clear---the statcon fuel is based on an average case, over a period of time for the arrival of that particular flight.

The FCI is also clear that it does NOT take into account weather at destination or enroute or other 'day of ops' issues.

So, if wx is forecast for DXB you take extra fuel.

If CB's pop up that were not forecast, you either commit or go to your alternate. If you commit and get to the point where you are concerned about fuel you declare a pan, get to the point where you WILL land below rsv then declare the mayday.

You have followed company policy and you have been prudent in your decision making.

I don't think you would ever be hauled in for it but if you are then stick to your guns, use the documents THEY gave you and explain your decision making. There is NOTHING dangerous in statcon. You can divert enroute or at destination and be safe! You can commit and still be safe.

As for the Italian captain - we have no idea as to his situation. Did he burn extra fuel enroute, what is his companies fuel policy, does he have the NOTAM for the 20 minutes holding fuel in DXB (how many NOTAMS do we not get in our packs) etc etc etc.

The controller could have told him to hold. As I wasn't there I have no idea what was said. If the controller declared the mayday for him and vectored him in then so be it. I just love how we assume that we at EK know our stuff but no one else does!!!
Trader is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 11:46
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To be semantic, the AIC states 30mins holding should be carried into the UAE, not 20 mins.

Does EK carry around the AIP for all the countries they fly to? or is it provided to you? Just wondering because all we have are FIR/UIR, and Aerodrome NOTAMs, and they specify 20 minutes extra holding file...is that incorrect?
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 12:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ex380, I believe that 30 minutes holding you are referring to is your fixed reserve
position & hold is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.