JAR-EASA Alternate Planning
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EDDF - LIRF
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR-EASA Alternate Planning
Hi everybody! 
I had a nice friendly discussion about alternate fuel planning with a very good collegue of mine.
Unfortunately we could not find a common answer to the following question:
"Which fuel consumption/speed, for the AUTHORITY, is taken into account for alternate fuel planning?"
In my airline, according my OM-A, the fuel consumption for alternate is supposed to be at COST INDEX 0. But is it as well required from the european Authority or not?
My collegue told me that, although in his company they do fly with cost index 0 to the alternate, the fuel calculated in the OFP is with normal cruise cost index. This means they have an additional margin.
Looking in the net and in my manuals i could find nothing else than this text:
""""Alternate Fuel
Alternate fuel is the amount of fuel required from the missed approach point at the destination aerodrome until landing at the alternate aerodrome. It takes into account the required fuel for:
....Now here we can not read anything about fuel CONSUMPTION!
So, the question again....with which fuel consumption does the Authority require me to calculate ALTERNATE fuel?
Thank you very much for your help!
I had a nice friendly discussion about alternate fuel planning with a very good collegue of mine.
Unfortunately we could not find a common answer to the following question:
"Which fuel consumption/speed, for the AUTHORITY, is taken into account for alternate fuel planning?"
In my airline, according my OM-A, the fuel consumption for alternate is supposed to be at COST INDEX 0. But is it as well required from the european Authority or not?
My collegue told me that, although in his company they do fly with cost index 0 to the alternate, the fuel calculated in the OFP is with normal cruise cost index. This means they have an additional margin.
Looking in the net and in my manuals i could find nothing else than this text:
""""Alternate Fuel
Alternate fuel is the amount of fuel required from the missed approach point at the destination aerodrome until landing at the alternate aerodrome. It takes into account the required fuel for:
- Missed approach at the destination airport
- Climb to enroute altitude, cruise and descent at alternate aerodrome
- Approach at alternate
- Landing at the alternate aerodrome
....Now here we can not read anything about fuel CONSUMPTION!
So, the question again....with which fuel consumption does the Authority require me to calculate ALTERNATE fuel?
Thank you very much for your help!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: internet
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi bio161, let me correct your writing as your good colleague is anything but me :-)
What i told you is that although we do fly cost index 0,which is equivalent to the best/max range speed as per Airbus "Getting to grips with performance", my company is planning the fuel burn to the alternate on the OFP, with the LRC(long range cruise) speed, not with the normal cruise cost index.Therefore the margin is even higher than the normal cruise,as normally we fly the aircraft from departure aerodrome to destination with a range of cost index which is lower than the LRC.
According to Airbus A320 QRH a long range cruise cost index is 50 for a A319 and 40 for a A320.
I would like you to consider the following scenario.
Let's assume for a while that your company plans your OFP from destination to alternate with the best/max range (cost index 0), how would you be able to determine that particular speed in such a case of a double FMGC failure?
You very well know that the best range speed is very variable,and dependant on factors like temperature,weight,wind etc.
In this situation you will be forced to revert to paper tables,like the one you can find in the QRH/FCOM, and consequently,unless your company provides you with different tables,you will need to consult one of the following tables to determine the speed to go to the alternate:
-FCOM PER-FPL-FLP-ALN-20
"Alternate Planning from Destination to Alternate Airport" based on:
‐ Go-around: 80 kg or 180 lb
‐ Climb profile: 250 kt/300 kt/M .78
‐ Long range speed
‐ Descent profile: M .78/300 kt/250 kt
‐ Approach and landing at alternate airport: 60 kg or 140 lb (4 min)
‐ ISA
‐ CG = 33 %
‐ Normal air conditioning
‐ Anti ice OFF
-QRH FPE-AEO 4/4
"QUICK DETERMINATION TABLE OF ALTERNATE FLIGHT PLANNING" based on Long Range Descent.
In conclusion if you have the OFP calculated with Cost Index 0 (best/max range) and then you fly according to this tables, you will burn more fuel than what was planned and loaded for that particular flight.
What i told you is that although we do fly cost index 0,which is equivalent to the best/max range speed as per Airbus "Getting to grips with performance", my company is planning the fuel burn to the alternate on the OFP, with the LRC(long range cruise) speed, not with the normal cruise cost index.Therefore the margin is even higher than the normal cruise,as normally we fly the aircraft from departure aerodrome to destination with a range of cost index which is lower than the LRC.
According to Airbus A320 QRH a long range cruise cost index is 50 for a A319 and 40 for a A320.
I would like you to consider the following scenario.
Let's assume for a while that your company plans your OFP from destination to alternate with the best/max range (cost index 0), how would you be able to determine that particular speed in such a case of a double FMGC failure?
You very well know that the best range speed is very variable,and dependant on factors like temperature,weight,wind etc.
In this situation you will be forced to revert to paper tables,like the one you can find in the QRH/FCOM, and consequently,unless your company provides you with different tables,you will need to consult one of the following tables to determine the speed to go to the alternate:
-FCOM PER-FPL-FLP-ALN-20
"Alternate Planning from Destination to Alternate Airport" based on:
‐ Go-around: 80 kg or 180 lb
‐ Climb profile: 250 kt/300 kt/M .78
‐ Long range speed
‐ Descent profile: M .78/300 kt/250 kt
‐ Approach and landing at alternate airport: 60 kg or 140 lb (4 min)
‐ ISA
‐ CG = 33 %
‐ Normal air conditioning
‐ Anti ice OFF
-QRH FPE-AEO 4/4
"QUICK DETERMINATION TABLE OF ALTERNATE FLIGHT PLANNING" based on Long Range Descent.
In conclusion if you have the OFP calculated with Cost Index 0 (best/max range) and then you fly according to this tables, you will burn more fuel than what was planned and loaded for that particular flight.
Last edited by AFD; 19th Feb 2014 at 16:46.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EDDF - LIRF
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi AFD,
Well, if you are not good i´m far from that!
Anyway thanks a lot for your answer, i share completely your idea about what you wrote. You clarified many points of view of mine!
The only thing that for me is incredible..Is it possible that the Authority does NOT specify any speed and or fuel consumption for alternate fuel planning?...
it looks like the answer is: YES!
Well, if you are not good i´m far from that!
Anyway thanks a lot for your answer, i share completely your idea about what you wrote. You clarified many points of view of mine!
The only thing that for me is incredible..Is it possible that the Authority does NOT specify any speed and or fuel consumption for alternate fuel planning?...
it looks like the answer is: YES!
