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.

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.

Aaaahhhh.....

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

(could have been so simple really)

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.

Any idea what type of aircraft was involved?

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...:ugh:

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 :E

You didn't get my post at all did you ironbutt57..!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It seems that the only complaint here is that somebody jumped the queue and that bent your nose out of shape.

Bless.

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.

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 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.

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!

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!!!

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?

Ex380, I believe that 30 minutes holding you are referring to is your fixed reserve

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 :O

Ok, let's get this straight: ATC do not make operational decisions on your behalf. WE do not decide whether YOU should divert, we do not decide your fuel state (as it should be..how can we?) nor any other thing to do with your on-board situation. We just facilitate activity based on the info you give us The decision-making process will vary from company to company anyway. It appears, from this thread, that it will vary from pilot to pilot, even pilots from the same company!

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?

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 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.

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?

Silly me. I thought "are you declaring an emergency" was the short version of saying this. Obviously it means different things to different people- like the fuel policy ;)

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.

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.

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?

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!

Interesting thread.............................

The issue seems to be more the LACK of ICAO English than shortage of fuel:ugh::ugh:

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:rolleyes:

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!!!!

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.

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.:ugh:

Thanks for that uplock - very clear. :ok:

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.

ex-A380, if your post was a direct quote then it's no wonder some people are confused. The 30 min Final Reserve is holding fuel insted of a landing reserve??? Interesting concept - touching down with empty tanks. :hmm:

The fuel policy is actually straightforward. It's a little disturbing that so many people don't seem to understand it.

Only the English could come up with something like that!

Plazbot The 'Trombone style' STAR for OMDB starts on 23rd Aug

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.

Less than 3% still possible as long as it doesn't go below 5 minutes... 2% STATCON always give more than that:hmm::hmm: