Flying from A to B with minimum fuel.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying from A to B with minimum fuel.
Hello everyone,
I would like to have your point of view on this case:
Imagine you are flying a commercial jet from A to B, flight time is 1h15m, A is your also your destination alternate and both airports are single runway only and weather is cavok on both airports.
Due to long taxi on the ground, you have burned more fuel than expected and once airbone you only have 5 min extra fuel. You are now on final at B airport and due to ATC mistake you have to perform a go around as the taking off aircraft is still on the runway.
Now obviously your extra would not be enough to shoot a second approach if you still wish to keep airport A as your destination alternate.
In that case, since weather is good, I would cancel airport A as alternate, which will give me more than 1h extra fuel and shoot a second approach at airport B and I don't need to declare minimum fuel as I will land comfortably with much more than 30 min of fuel in the tanks.
Now I know by the books to dispatch an aircraft without destination alternate, one of the conditions is that the airport must have 2 parallel runways. But as I understand this rule is only for dispatch conditions isn't it?
In the air, all those rules don't apply. From the EASA AIR LAW book:" The commander of an aeroplane has the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft whilst in command.'' And it's up to the captain responsibility to ensure that the aircraft will land with not less than minimum fuel. So as long as he does not land with less than 30 min of fuel in the tanks, he is not breaking any law. That's how I understand it.
Cause some guys tell me that in that case, I should immediately divert to the alternate. But the alternate is 1h15min away, single runway with now zero extra fuel. Meaning that I would be in minimum fuel immediately and if I need to do a go around or any delay I would be in mayday fuel. So I don't understand how this could be even a consideration...
The airlaw is not very clear about it IMHO. And I believe lots of people are very confused about it. So many diversions happened when they ran out of extra time while they were less than 10 min flight from their destination.
Please share your thaughts about it.
Thank you.
I would like to have your point of view on this case:
Imagine you are flying a commercial jet from A to B, flight time is 1h15m, A is your also your destination alternate and both airports are single runway only and weather is cavok on both airports.
Due to long taxi on the ground, you have burned more fuel than expected and once airbone you only have 5 min extra fuel. You are now on final at B airport and due to ATC mistake you have to perform a go around as the taking off aircraft is still on the runway.
Now obviously your extra would not be enough to shoot a second approach if you still wish to keep airport A as your destination alternate.
In that case, since weather is good, I would cancel airport A as alternate, which will give me more than 1h extra fuel and shoot a second approach at airport B and I don't need to declare minimum fuel as I will land comfortably with much more than 30 min of fuel in the tanks.
Now I know by the books to dispatch an aircraft without destination alternate, one of the conditions is that the airport must have 2 parallel runways. But as I understand this rule is only for dispatch conditions isn't it?
In the air, all those rules don't apply. From the EASA AIR LAW book:" The commander of an aeroplane has the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft whilst in command.'' And it's up to the captain responsibility to ensure that the aircraft will land with not less than minimum fuel. So as long as he does not land with less than 30 min of fuel in the tanks, he is not breaking any law. That's how I understand it.
Cause some guys tell me that in that case, I should immediately divert to the alternate. But the alternate is 1h15min away, single runway with now zero extra fuel. Meaning that I would be in minimum fuel immediately and if I need to do a go around or any delay I would be in mayday fuel. So I don't understand how this could be even a consideration...
The airlaw is not very clear about it IMHO. And I believe lots of people are very confused about it. So many diversions happened when they ran out of extra time while they were less than 10 min flight from their destination.
Please share your thaughts about it.
Thank you.
Last edited by pineteam; 1st Apr 2018 at 15:47. Reason: Typo.
I'd rather be at the runway I can see at the moment with fuel to play with so even if I go around again I have fuel in hand vs flying back to somewhere an hour away where a lot could of happened in that time to have little fuel to play with
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it’s not that easy. Our company is quite generous on fuel. However taking extra fuel when it’s cavok everywhere, I don’t do that. We already have 15 min extra fuel on top of the minimum required by law for every flight. And sometimes we just can’t take any extra as the payload is too much or the flight time is so long that even with full tanks ( Aircraft not equipped with extra tanks) we barely have some extra.
Anyway, thank you guys for your inputs. I’m glad to hear some common sense. I just wish more people had a better undestanding of the law to avoid unnecessary and probably more risky diversions.
Anyway, thank you guys for your inputs. I’m glad to hear some common sense. I just wish more people had a better undestanding of the law to avoid unnecessary and probably more risky diversions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t undestand your point. The scenario I describe was just to clarify something, not a real case. We do have short flights like I describe and like I said, if the weather is good I would not take extra fuel. I like to be efficient. Not in our company, but in some low cost carriers, you would have to explain yourself if you take extra fuel on a beautiful day. The contengency + the 15 min extra fuel gift from the company + conservative flight plan are more than enough especially I know, worst case scenario I can cancel my destination alternate fuel if required. Tankering and fuel price are very expensive especially outstation.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Always leave yourself a way out" was my mantra when I was an instructor. Particularly Multi Engine and IFR instructing lead to situations that would challenge you. At times some inconvenient decisions had to be taken, but they were all safe decisions. I would do as you and stick around my destination. It would be my way out, no more no less than my diversion field would be. I think someone who'd refer your situation to the books should loosen up a bit and adopt a helicopter perspective on what they're trying to achieve.
Ah yes, I see you did put the reason why you would go missed....I personally would try a second approach and if ATC screws up again then I'd declare an emergency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh I see. I thought you were blaming me for something..Lol. I would probably do same as you. = )
Last edited by pineteam; 14th May 2018 at 05:38. Reason: typo
Cheers
Just to add, I wouldn't try to dick around on the ILS or such either if I did declare an emergency I would wanna just turn downwind and land on a visual
Just to add, I wouldn't try to dick around on the ILS or such either if I did declare an emergency I would wanna just turn downwind and land on a visual
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello everyone,
I would like to have your point of view on this case:
Imagine you are flying a commercial jet from A to B, flight time is 1h15m, A is your also your destination alternate and both airports are single runway only and weather is cavok on both airports.
Due to long taxi on the ground, you have burned more fuel than expected and once airbone you only have 5 min extra fuel. You are now on final at B airport and due to ATC mistake you have to perform a go around as the taking off aircraft is still on the runway.
Now obviously your extra would not be enough to shoot a second approach if you still wish to keep airport A as your destination alternate.
In that case, since weather is good, I would cancel airport A as alternate, which will give me more than 1h extra fuel and shoot a second approach at airport B and I don't need to declare minimum fuel as I will land comfortably with much more than 30 min of fuel in the tanks.
Now I know by the books to dispatch an aircraft without destination alternate, one of the conditions is that the airport must have 2 parallel runways. But as I understand this rule is only for dispatch conditions isn't it?
In the air, all those rules don't apply. From the EASA AIR LAW book:" The commander of an aeroplane has the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft whilst in command.'' And it's up to the captain responsibility to ensure that the aircraft will land with not less than minimum fuel. So as long as he does not land with less than 30 min of fuel in the tanks, he is not breaking any law. That's how I understand it.
Cause some guys tell me that in that case, I should immediately divert to the alternate. But the alternate is 1h15min away, single runway with now zero extra fuel. Meaning that I would be in minimum fuel immediately and if I need to do a go around or any delay I would be in mayday fuel. So I don't understand how this could be even a consideration...
The airlaw is not very clear about it IMHO. And I believe lots of people are very confused about it. So many diversions happened when they ran out of extra time while they were less than 10 min flight from their destination.
Please share your thaughts about it.
Thank you.
I would like to have your point of view on this case:
Imagine you are flying a commercial jet from A to B, flight time is 1h15m, A is your also your destination alternate and both airports are single runway only and weather is cavok on both airports.
Due to long taxi on the ground, you have burned more fuel than expected and once airbone you only have 5 min extra fuel. You are now on final at B airport and due to ATC mistake you have to perform a go around as the taking off aircraft is still on the runway.
Now obviously your extra would not be enough to shoot a second approach if you still wish to keep airport A as your destination alternate.
In that case, since weather is good, I would cancel airport A as alternate, which will give me more than 1h extra fuel and shoot a second approach at airport B and I don't need to declare minimum fuel as I will land comfortably with much more than 30 min of fuel in the tanks.
Now I know by the books to dispatch an aircraft without destination alternate, one of the conditions is that the airport must have 2 parallel runways. But as I understand this rule is only for dispatch conditions isn't it?
In the air, all those rules don't apply. From the EASA AIR LAW book:" The commander of an aeroplane has the final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft whilst in command.'' And it's up to the captain responsibility to ensure that the aircraft will land with not less than minimum fuel. So as long as he does not land with less than 30 min of fuel in the tanks, he is not breaking any law. That's how I understand it.
Cause some guys tell me that in that case, I should immediately divert to the alternate. But the alternate is 1h15min away, single runway with now zero extra fuel. Meaning that I would be in minimum fuel immediately and if I need to do a go around or any delay I would be in mayday fuel. So I don't understand how this could be even a consideration...
The airlaw is not very clear about it IMHO. And I believe lots of people are very confused about it. So many diversions happened when they ran out of extra time while they were less than 10 min flight from their destination.
Please share your thaughts about it.
Thank you.
Last edited by sonicbum; 2nd Apr 2018 at 17:32.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I assume your operator or regulator does not permit:
1) The cancellation of IFR services and reversion to VFR, thus removing the need for the alternate airport, or
2) Conducting the remainder of the flight under a No Alternate IFR clause.
The regulator I work under and the operator I work for permit both options given the weather you described. Given an ATC error, I would hope even in the busier centres, they'd see the rationale of accepting a VFR Transport Category aircraft to return for landing at a primarily IFR operated airfield.
1) The cancellation of IFR services and reversion to VFR, thus removing the need for the alternate airport, or
2) Conducting the remainder of the flight under a No Alternate IFR clause.
The regulator I work under and the operator I work for permit both options given the weather you described. Given an ATC error, I would hope even in the busier centres, they'd see the rationale of accepting a VFR Transport Category aircraft to return for landing at a primarily IFR operated airfield.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, thank you for your comments.
I checked again the fuel policy in our Flight Operating Manual (FOM) and it matches what has been said above:
https://ibb.co/fheEKx
I don’t undestand how it can be so badly interpreted. Looks like pilots just swallow whatever they are told during training even if sometimes it’s wrong and don’t bother to crosscheck the information in the books.
I checked again the fuel policy in our Flight Operating Manual (FOM) and it matches what has been said above:
https://ibb.co/fheEKx
I don’t undestand how it can be so badly interpreted. Looks like pilots just swallow whatever they are told during training even if sometimes it’s wrong and don’t bother to crosscheck the information in the books.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like pilots just swallow whatever they are told during training even if sometimes it’s wrong and don’t bother to crosscheck the information in the books.
Or don't open their minds and apply a modicum of sound airmanship. There will be many FOM's that have ambiguous grey areas where that MO has to be used, regularly. Sadly it is becoming less & less and then those who are dependant solely on 'the books' are left floundering when the answer found is not black & white.
Or don't open their minds and apply a modicum of sound airmanship. There will be many FOM's that have ambiguous grey areas where that MO has to be used, regularly. Sadly it is becoming less & less and then those who are dependant solely on 'the books' are left floundering when the answer found is not black & white.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: outside the box
Age: 40
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem really is that more and more operators are trying to save as much as possible by releasing flights with minimum fuel and addition to the shortest alternate in good weather conditions. Of course what was said above about being committed at your B destination after a go-around is the correct action but I raise you this..
What if in a nice CAVOK day your destination B is a very busy airport and you just have fuel for the shortest alternate and you got unexpected hold due traffic and then when committed to your B airport the aircraft in front of you crash-lands and you have to go-around? .. or what if this happens as you hold and ALL the traffic starts diverting to the shortest alternate, the same alternate that you have and you can barely reach? This is exactly why I m not so fond of minimum fuel flying in CAVOK conditions. The emergency extra 30 min of fuel is always something you can use but you re going to loose at least 10 years from your life if you land on fuel vapour..
What if in a nice CAVOK day your destination B is a very busy airport and you just have fuel for the shortest alternate and you got unexpected hold due traffic and then when committed to your B airport the aircraft in front of you crash-lands and you have to go-around? .. or what if this happens as you hold and ALL the traffic starts diverting to the shortest alternate, the same alternate that you have and you can barely reach? This is exactly why I m not so fond of minimum fuel flying in CAVOK conditions. The emergency extra 30 min of fuel is always something you can use but you re going to loose at least 10 years from your life if you land on fuel vapour..
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are too many “what ifs” to carry sufficient fuel for all eventualities. 10 minutes spare fuel makes me no happier than a spare one hour or minus five minutes. Either way, Plan A, B and possibly C will have been running from before departure and kept up to date with changing circumstances as your flight progresses. What is important is that you understand what is still viable and still sensibie as your fuel state changes. As fuel is burnt over time you will end up having to commit to something but that does not necessary mean a diversion.
PM
PM
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 4th Apr 2018 at 21:36.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Новосибирск
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my 2 cents:
There are 2 stages: Flight preparation and Flight procedure
If you have taken not less the minimum required for dispatch you are covered. This is the theoretical, the legal part at Flight preparation.
Now due to unforeseen circumstances at one point you have an actual fuel quantity less than planned. Now you are faced to the reality so you do not care about the Flight preparation anymore. Now it is about Flight procedure. What Flight procedure says is about MINIMUM FUEL and LOW FUEL.
LOW FUEL is simple: when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel. (Planned final reserve # final reserve but this is another story, just let’s say less than 30 mn for jet)
MINIMUM FUEL: all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than the planned final reserve fuel.
Both statements DO NOT mention that the “specific aerodrome of intended landing” must be your alternate A. It can be also your original destination, here B:
After assessment you have decided to land at your destination B, meaning you are not in Minimum fuel at all because B is now your “specific aerodrome of intended landing” and after the go around and a second approach you still have maybe 1h25mn which is far more than the final reserve. BUT If you have decided to divert to the alternate A then you are in Minimum fuel or even Low fuel.
For me, saying that you have to divert straight to the alternate (whatever the situation) whenever your planned landing fuel is less than alt + final reserve is just absurd (sorry for the word)
There are 2 stages: Flight preparation and Flight procedure
If you have taken not less the minimum required for dispatch you are covered. This is the theoretical, the legal part at Flight preparation.
Now due to unforeseen circumstances at one point you have an actual fuel quantity less than planned. Now you are faced to the reality so you do not care about the Flight preparation anymore. Now it is about Flight procedure. What Flight procedure says is about MINIMUM FUEL and LOW FUEL.
LOW FUEL is simple: when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel. (Planned final reserve # final reserve but this is another story, just let’s say less than 30 mn for jet)
MINIMUM FUEL: all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than the planned final reserve fuel.
Both statements DO NOT mention that the “specific aerodrome of intended landing” must be your alternate A. It can be also your original destination, here B:
After assessment you have decided to land at your destination B, meaning you are not in Minimum fuel at all because B is now your “specific aerodrome of intended landing” and after the go around and a second approach you still have maybe 1h25mn which is far more than the final reserve. BUT If you have decided to divert to the alternate A then you are in Minimum fuel or even Low fuel.
For me, saying that you have to divert straight to the alternate (whatever the situation) whenever your planned landing fuel is less than alt + final reserve is just absurd (sorry for the word)