What does in excess of 40 minutes mean?
 

From the beginning of my flying training I was told that I had to carry in addition to fuel for A to B, sufficient fuel for at least a fixed reserve, variable reserve then whatever was required for weather and traffic holding. The allowances was always for a certain time e.g. 30 min, 60min etc.

So is anyone able to advise the actual number "in excess of 40 minutes" equates to? This was the holding fuel required yesterday for traffic going into Sydney. Not only that but the airlines were not advised of the change in holding fuel so the first notice of the increased traffic holding was taxiing out for departure! In fact taxiing out it was advised as 40 minutes, it was only once airborne that it became in excess of 40 minutes.

Normal traffic fuel for that time of day is 25 minutes and there were no weather requirements.

I thought I was familiar with the AIP but if someone can post the appropriate reference that would be appreciated.:confused:

Sounds like someone was making it up as they went along.

Hasn't there been a recent change to Traffic Holding requirements. Is that what you are getting at?

As its advisory only, it's not mandatory to carry it. But you may not get in without it.

If you are thinking of the Ground Delay Program CF it wasn't related to that.

What was the change that you are referring to?

AIP Supplement H73/14 _ Date: 21 August 2014
It's a brave New World.

Thanks for that info Trent but even the NOTAM didn't happen yesterday. Seems as though traffic holding is going to be on a need to know basis with the PIC being the last one in the chain. Probably carrying 60 minutes holding into a capital city airport on every sector should be sufficient. I wonder how long it will be before the airlines start jumping up and down. Once again 2nd best place in the world to operate.:ugh:

"LL" you say 2nd best place in the world to operate? Jesus we could be so lucky!
It just goes to show how the 'band-aid' fix to our dreadful ATC system is getting wider.
On one hand you have the Company holding you (Capt)almost to ransom to justify extra gas & on the other hand many years of experience in Oz with it's 3rd world ATC system dictates to carry a sh1t load more just for such occasions as this latest disorganized fix!:ugh:
Christ who'd wanna be a pilot ?!!!


Wmk2

Sounds like delays increased above the forecast peak, which should technically be communicated as a "hazard alert" (AIP GEN 3.3 2.5.4)
However be aware that once the NOTAM is issued the ATC requirement to provide alerting ceases. If you are using a static source (e.g. printed PFIB) and the NOTAM is issued one minute after you obtained it, don't expect any further ATC advice.

Once a NOTAM is issued, it is no longer a hazard alert, but you are still entitled to the NOTAM under ATC initiated FIS - "will include the provision of pertinent operational information" This should be provided to aircraft within 1 hours flight time at the time the NOTAM is issued.

MATS (instructions for ATC) says:
Aircraft to notify
Notify aircraft, at the time operational information and the existence of non-routine MET products is identified:
a) except for amended ARFOR, by directed transmission to those aircraft maintaining continuous communication and within one hour’s flight time of the conditions (two hours in the case of SIGMET);
b) where continuous communication is not required, by broadcasting on appropriate ATS frequencies to those aircraft that could be within one hour’s flight time of the conditions (two hours in the case of SIGMET); and
c) by directed transmission to all affected aircraft engaged in SAR action.

As ollie says the phrase "in excess of" gets used when it becomes evident that the delays in MAESTRO are exceeding the previously NOTAMed maximum delay. It's not to advise you how much extra you need to carry (because we don't know yet) but to let you know the forecast is wrong and the real delays are currently bigger.

Thanks for that, now I understand the problem from the ATC point of view but I'm not sure the system understands the problem from the pilots point of view. I am not having a go at the ATC people at the coal face because you are only working within the limitations of a flawed system.

The problem from the pilots point of view is that we need to know what the actual holding time is as we are only operating with a finite resource. If I don't have enough fuel I would want to find out sooner rather than later so that I can get back on the ground with sufficient reserves to put more fuel on. My preference would be to refuel before I got airborne as it would only cost me 20 or 30 minutes extra.

On Saturday at no point did the forecast require weather holding and when I did my approach I was visual with the runway on base. I touched down 11 minutes after my scheduled ETA so MAESTRO created a lot of bother for very little reason.

Call the NOC mate :ok: centre of excellence that it is ;)

It's like a observation of unforecast fog or thunderstorms at the field. Until someone puts out an amended forecast that's the only information we've got to give you.

I think you might be confusing Metron with MAESTRO - Metron does the off block times & ground delays, MAESTRO does the sequencing.

Unexpected traffic holding is often due to a reduction in runway capacity - too much crosswind for LAHSO or the acceptance rate has to be reduced due to strong winds.

Why don't you declare a fuel emergency and submit an incident report. Finding out after you've already loaded pax and started engines is unacceptable..you need to fire a rocket up someone!

mattyj, it's not a perfect world. Low percentage options happen occasionally.

That's a phrase I've not come across before. Could you expand on that lP and explain what it means when considering holding fuel?

Reading the AIP Supplement it almost seems that Airservices are suggesting that declaring a fuel emergency is an acceptable SOP if you don't have the holding fuel. Personally I can do without the grief and the paperwork.

Low percentage/probability. Weather forecasts are probability based so you will get the unmentioned 5% conditions occasionally, e.g. 25kts crosswind instead of 15kts ruining LAHSO. Stronger wind than forecast requiring more time spacing in the sequence (slower down final equals more time between arrivals).

Adverse conditions arrive early and you lose 10 slots - those aircraft have to fit somewhere.

Equipment failure or staffing issues meaning you can't run PRM approaches. For Melbourne when conditions deteriorate we have to include Essendon traffic in the sequence. MEDEVAC traffic.

Events occasionally conspire to ruin the best laid plans is what I'm saying. If pilots are expecting things to be set in concrete or even jelly hours before they arrive every single time they're going to be sorely disappointed. The world doesn't work that way.

I think you'll find "the pilot in command of an aircraft arriving at a destination without sufficient fuel for actual traffic holding will not be accorded a priority approach unless the pilot declares an emergency" has been ever thus.

Exactly!

The thing is, will the disappointment lead to learning, followed by enhanced awareness & experience? Or will it simply lead to complaining & demanding someone to fix things?

A bit difficult to know what the actual traffic holding is when it is declared as "in excess of 40 minutes". We now have gone full circle on the topic. :ugh:

I fully understand you're looking for certainty and why, but sometimes that just not possible. You're overthinking it. Every time you fly there's a possibility you'll arrive with inadequate holding fuel due to some unforeseen event causing delays.