Shock horror - Nigel has to wait.
Artificial Horizon
… . The rule is 'as soon as you reach a fuel quantity that equals your diversion fuel+final reserve fuel then by law you MUST divert…
… If your EAT is changed and the implication of this is that you reach the point of burning diversion fuel you must then divert, it is not a question of choice but of LAW….
Neither statement is correct. Which rule, and what law do you think mandates this? It may be your company’s procedure, but it is not the law.
… What happens if you decide to stay in the hold…then the unthinkable happens and the destination airport is closed for a couple of hours…
What happens is exactly the same as happens if you divert and the unthinkable happens at your diversion airfield instead.
Why do those who come up with this argument assume that nothing ever goes wrong at diversion airfields? Do they perhaps have some way of ensuring that problems only ever occur at destination airfields?
Pilots inbound to LHR, holding in one of the LHR holds, will almost certainly have a better picture of the overall situation at LHR than they will about the overall situation at their nominated diversion, where their information may well be confined to the latest weather conditions.
They may quite reasonably decide that, knowing the situation at LHR, provided a landing is reasonably assured with at least minimum fuel reserves remaining, then it is more prudent to commit to landing at LHR, rather than to divert to a diversion airfield where you could encounter the same problems or worse, perhaps now at a single runway airport, and certainly now with even less fuel remaining on board.
If you do divert, you won’t feel too happy should you meet aircraft coming the other way, who have just diverted from your diversion airfield, for reasons you knew nothing about.
I believe it is both safer and preferable to allow the commander to make an informed decision on the day, taking into account all known circumstances, rather than arbitrarily to insist on an immediate diversion as soon as the minimum diversion fuel figure is reached.
Happily, this is what both the law and my employer permit me to do.
Regards
Bellerophon
… . The rule is 'as soon as you reach a fuel quantity that equals your diversion fuel+final reserve fuel then by law you MUST divert…
… If your EAT is changed and the implication of this is that you reach the point of burning diversion fuel you must then divert, it is not a question of choice but of LAW….
Neither statement is correct. Which rule, and what law do you think mandates this? It may be your company’s procedure, but it is not the law.
… What happens if you decide to stay in the hold…then the unthinkable happens and the destination airport is closed for a couple of hours…
What happens is exactly the same as happens if you divert and the unthinkable happens at your diversion airfield instead.
Why do those who come up with this argument assume that nothing ever goes wrong at diversion airfields? Do they perhaps have some way of ensuring that problems only ever occur at destination airfields?
Pilots inbound to LHR, holding in one of the LHR holds, will almost certainly have a better picture of the overall situation at LHR than they will about the overall situation at their nominated diversion, where their information may well be confined to the latest weather conditions.
They may quite reasonably decide that, knowing the situation at LHR, provided a landing is reasonably assured with at least minimum fuel reserves remaining, then it is more prudent to commit to landing at LHR, rather than to divert to a diversion airfield where you could encounter the same problems or worse, perhaps now at a single runway airport, and certainly now with even less fuel remaining on board.
If you do divert, you won’t feel too happy should you meet aircraft coming the other way, who have just diverted from your diversion airfield, for reasons you knew nothing about.
I believe it is both safer and preferable to allow the commander to make an informed decision on the day, taking into account all known circumstances, rather than arbitrarily to insist on an immediate diversion as soon as the minimum diversion fuel figure is reached.
Happily, this is what both the law and my employer permit me to do.
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point that seems to be being missed here, is that your Ops Manual is a legal document. It is effectively an interpretation of national legislation, personalised for your company. If you disobey it, you are ipso facto breaking the law.
It is a very minor point, though, compared to the dodgy airmanship on display in this thread. Anyone ever heard of a tech stop? How come nobody seems to know that STN is a good alternate for LHR, and for some, LTN? I mean, go to BHX if you want... but...
If you want to burn your divert fuel in the hold, fine. It is, however, exceedingly stupid to do so. You don't know whats going to happen while you are in the hold. Most fuel plans have divert fuel, hold fuel, contingency fuel. Burn the hold fuel by all means, even the contingency, but not the divert fuel. Do none of your companies have a Final Reserve Fuel, that you should have more than on landing?
If you want to take off with absolute minimum fuel, or your company "forces" you to, you are asking to be the cause of an emergency. Good luck to you.
If you work for a company that interferes with your fuel planning in the way that is implied here, you might want to think about changing employers...
It is a very minor point, though, compared to the dodgy airmanship on display in this thread. Anyone ever heard of a tech stop? How come nobody seems to know that STN is a good alternate for LHR, and for some, LTN? I mean, go to BHX if you want... but...
If you want to burn your divert fuel in the hold, fine. It is, however, exceedingly stupid to do so. You don't know whats going to happen while you are in the hold. Most fuel plans have divert fuel, hold fuel, contingency fuel. Burn the hold fuel by all means, even the contingency, but not the divert fuel. Do none of your companies have a Final Reserve Fuel, that you should have more than on landing?
If you want to take off with absolute minimum fuel, or your company "forces" you to, you are asking to be the cause of an emergency. Good luck to you.
If you work for a company that interferes with your fuel planning in the way that is implied here, you might want to think about changing employers...
Controversial, moi?
If you want to burn your divert fuel in the hold, fine. It is, however, exceedingly stupid to do so.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RD
I suggest you read the full JAR-OPS text regards fuel policy! They are infinatly more sensible than the old CAA regulations. Without getting into the minutia, they avoid the need to make unneccesary divertions.
Or am I to understand that you divert with enough gas to arrive at your divertion AD and then divert back to your original destination or another divert AD? Or are you arriving at your divertion AD with Final Reserve (CMR), as you did suggest it was OK to burn your hold fuel! therefore no different to the senarios being discussed by previous posters but they arrive at destination.
Do explain as I'm thourghly confused by your fuel policy.
I suggest you read the full JAR-OPS text regards fuel policy! They are infinatly more sensible than the old CAA regulations. Without getting into the minutia, they avoid the need to make unneccesary divertions.
Or am I to understand that you divert with enough gas to arrive at your divertion AD and then divert back to your original destination or another divert AD? Or are you arriving at your divertion AD with Final Reserve (CMR), as you did suggest it was OK to burn your hold fuel! therefore no different to the senarios being discussed by previous posters but they arrive at destination.
Do explain as I'm thourghly confused by your fuel policy.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm,
Looking at the comments here, one would get the impression that holding is only required at LHR.
Actually, have held much longer at FRA or AMS.
Also interesting that many British operators seem to think that departing with min fuel, and in so doing, arriving at LHR with absolutely min fuel, is a good idea, let alone burning the diversion fuel in the hold, and 'commiting' to LHR at the drop of a hat.
If these were FAA certified airlines, they would be put out of business with these foolish practices.
Looking at the comments here, one would get the impression that holding is only required at LHR.
Actually, have held much longer at FRA or AMS.
Also interesting that many British operators seem to think that departing with min fuel, and in so doing, arriving at LHR with absolutely min fuel, is a good idea, let alone burning the diversion fuel in the hold, and 'commiting' to LHR at the drop of a hat.
If these were FAA certified airlines, they would be put out of business with these foolish practices.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic has rattled around the 'halls of Prune' for many a year and there will always be different opinions. The fact is that JAROPS allows commanders to burn diversion fuel in certain conditions with a single runway destination. As one of the 'older' generation I am extremely wary and generally unwilling to do this, since I need to know with REASONABLE assurance that I will have somewhere to land with fuel in my tanks. Give me 2 independent runways at destination and it is different. It is perhaps JAROPS we need to query rather than the commanders, who are naturally under pressure from their respective companies to exercise this option. It wil take a real, hopefully non-fatal emergency landing to focus on this.
Yes, the argument about going from the 'pot to the pan' is a valid one. However, as a short-haul pilot, I know that if I set off from LGW to Bournemouth and BOH becomes unuseable I can put the aircraft down at either Bristol or Southampton; if I am going to STN, at Southend/Cambridge or Manston. There is always Biggin Hill. None of these alternatives are anything like ideal, but they will avoid an accident. To me, committing to any single runway with minimal fuel when I have other options does not make a lot of sense. Hopefully the idea that LGW has an 'emergency' runway has been laid to rest.
If events deteriorate that much, it matters not whether the runway is long enough for me to take-off again with my full load, or even whether I have passenger handling or engineering there. When I get to that stage, as long as it is enough to land on safely, that'll do!
In previous discussions I mentioned the RAF Lightning and its 'precautionary' fuel state, which, when declared, meant there was not enough fuel to divert (normally on take-off
). The runway was then 'closed' to all other traffic until that 'precautionary' landed, which was fine. Obviously not going to work commercially!
Yes, the argument about going from the 'pot to the pan' is a valid one. However, as a short-haul pilot, I know that if I set off from LGW to Bournemouth and BOH becomes unuseable I can put the aircraft down at either Bristol or Southampton; if I am going to STN, at Southend/Cambridge or Manston. There is always Biggin Hill. None of these alternatives are anything like ideal, but they will avoid an accident. To me, committing to any single runway with minimal fuel when I have other options does not make a lot of sense. Hopefully the idea that LGW has an 'emergency' runway has been laid to rest.
If events deteriorate that much, it matters not whether the runway is long enough for me to take-off again with my full load, or even whether I have passenger handling or engineering there. When I get to that stage, as long as it is enough to land on safely, that'll do!
In previous discussions I mentioned the RAF Lightning and its 'precautionary' fuel state, which, when declared, meant there was not enough fuel to divert (normally on take-off
). The runway was then 'closed' to all other traffic until that 'precautionary' landed, which was fine. Obviously not going to work commercially!
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company policy
I think a good clear company policy can do a lot to alleviate these arguments.
Swissair years ago had a couple of flights divert from ZRH hold (actually 3 RW available) to GVA (1/2 hr away and 1 RW) because of ETA outside diversion fuel limit.
They then sat down and had a good think about a commit policy and came up with:
- a WX limit (I think it was 5km vis & 1000ft base)
- a 2 RW requirement (to minimise the unforseen crash scenario)
- a wind limit allowing said runways to be considered
- a runway state limit
- a definite ETA allowing a landing above min ldg fuel.
- some other restrictions about landing aids and serviceability.
It made sense at the time and I think it still does.
Arguing on RT never helps, however. Discussions on PPRuNe do - as we see here.
FC.
Swissair years ago had a couple of flights divert from ZRH hold (actually 3 RW available) to GVA (1/2 hr away and 1 RW) because of ETA outside diversion fuel limit.
They then sat down and had a good think about a commit policy and came up with:
- a WX limit (I think it was 5km vis & 1000ft base)
- a 2 RW requirement (to minimise the unforseen crash scenario)
- a wind limit allowing said runways to be considered
- a runway state limit
- a definite ETA allowing a landing above min ldg fuel.
- some other restrictions about landing aids and serviceability.
It made sense at the time and I think it still does.
Arguing on RT never helps, however. Discussions on PPRuNe do - as we see here.
FC.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would also help if people stopped regarding commanders as automatons. Committing to LHR is a legal nicety - we all know wthat if Mr B-L suddenly decided to close the AD then LTN, STN, Manston and probably LGW would all still remain available using a similar amount of fuel as an approach to LHR.
Of course, if you'd left LAM with minimum fuel and were told to go around at 50 feet and then divert, things would get interesting - but so would a dual engine failure at LAM and we dont insist on 3 engines as a minumum on public transport aircraft do we?
What AH and RD have not yet answered is the basic question - why is it more sensible to divert to another airfield which has just as high a chance of being unusable, than to stay in a hold which allows a much lower workload and hence better fuel planning decisions.
411a - nonone commits at the drop of a hat - we dont like doing it but would you suggest we divert to a single runway with enough fuel still in the tanks to hold for 20 minutes, make a 15 minute approach and still land with reserves plus? Sounds like a good way of going out of business.
Of course, if you'd left LAM with minimum fuel and were told to go around at 50 feet and then divert, things would get interesting - but so would a dual engine failure at LAM and we dont insist on 3 engines as a minumum on public transport aircraft do we?
What AH and RD have not yet answered is the basic question - why is it more sensible to divert to another airfield which has just as high a chance of being unusable, than to stay in a hold which allows a much lower workload and hence better fuel planning decisions.
411a - nonone commits at the drop of a hat - we dont like doing it but would you suggest we divert to a single runway with enough fuel still in the tanks to hold for 20 minutes, make a 15 minute approach and still land with reserves plus? Sounds like a good way of going out of business.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Northampton, UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, at last someone who posts a reasoned and sensible set of arguments about using diversion fuel to commit, without just saying "oh, you're all stupid"!!. I do disagree with you though 
But the argument is still the same; if you divert to Bournemouth, use your diversion fuel on the way, and the aircraft ahead goes in on the runway, you're down to a MAYDAY and off to Southampton or Bristol on gas. If you stayed at Gatwick and used all your diversion fuel, then someone plants it in ahead, you're down to a MAYDAY and off to Biggin or Southampton on gas. It IS the nightmare scenario, but is equally likely to happy whether you commit to Gatwick or divert.
The only way to stop this scenario would be to mandate diversion aerodromes having two runways; but in the UK, that would mean Heathrow and Manch getting the lot!!
The scenario did happen to an ATR a few years ago; inbound to Gatwick, the runway was blocked, so they made an early decision to divert (diversion fuel plus a load more carried for bad weather). Despite this, they were unable to land at Luton or Southampton (airports full of other diversions), and ended up at Bournemouth with the last of their diversion fuel (plus CMR, obviously). The aircraft ahead of them on the Bournemouth approach went in on the runway, so a MAYDAY ensued and Southampton magically found them some space. So even though used their diversion fuel to divert rather than hold, they still ended up in a low-fuel MAYDAY. (Before I get jumped on, no Nigel would have committed to LGW that evening with the runway reported as blocked for the next few hours, indeed it was the large number of diversions that added to the problems.)
Somebody once told me, that a shorthaul training captain at LGW tried to teach that if all else fails, ATC at Gatwick would be happy for you to land northwards on taxiway Q (continuing through the kink onto R). Oh how we laughted at the thought of a 737 trying it!!!
However, as a short-haul pilot, I know that if I set off from LGW to Bournemouth and BOH becomes unuseable I can put the aircraft down at either Bristol or Southampton; if I am going to STN, at Southend/Cambridge or Manston. There is always Biggin Hill.
The only way to stop this scenario would be to mandate diversion aerodromes having two runways; but in the UK, that would mean Heathrow and Manch getting the lot!!
The scenario did happen to an ATR a few years ago; inbound to Gatwick, the runway was blocked, so they made an early decision to divert (diversion fuel plus a load more carried for bad weather). Despite this, they were unable to land at Luton or Southampton (airports full of other diversions), and ended up at Bournemouth with the last of their diversion fuel (plus CMR, obviously). The aircraft ahead of them on the Bournemouth approach went in on the runway, so a MAYDAY ensued and Southampton magically found them some space. So even though used their diversion fuel to divert rather than hold, they still ended up in a low-fuel MAYDAY. (Before I get jumped on, no Nigel would have committed to LGW that evening with the runway reported as blocked for the next few hours, indeed it was the large number of diversions that added to the problems.)
Hopefully the idea that LGW has an 'emergency' runway has been laid to rest.
A problem with diverting, that seems to be overlooked, is that you are not operating in isolation and that if you have to divert due wx or closure then there is a good chance every one else will be diverting too!
So burning fuel to the minimum required for YOU to get to the diversion may still lead to unpleasant surprises when you join the rest of the crowd who also have only enough fuel for an unimpeded routing.
No experience of LHR (in this scenario) but have diverted once or twice in an environment where fuel states are generally at a minimum (North Sea rotary ops) and seen the general surprised reaction as 20 aircraft bear down on the same airport.
So burning fuel to the minimum required for YOU to get to the diversion may still lead to unpleasant surprises when you join the rest of the crowd who also have only enough fuel for an unimpeded routing.
No experience of LHR (in this scenario) but have diverted once or twice in an environment where fuel states are generally at a minimum (North Sea rotary ops) and seen the general surprised reaction as 20 aircraft bear down on the same airport.
Going back to the top of the thread, there seems to be a worrying degree of cockpit/control incomprehension here - what, the EAT really affects something? I'd never have thunk it! Is this a case to raise another traditional pprune beef and demand more familiarisation flights?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're committing to Heathrow it might be usefull to say so briefly on the r/t as a heads up to us. I thought about saying at this point that we could then give you an extra mile or so spacing on final to ensure a landing clearance in good time, but then that would knock back the EAT of those still holding.......
Pleased to see this is now a recommended course of action.
This is a sample of the very interesting discussion ... apologies to BEXIL ...
BEXIL160
Still just another number
posted 18th April 2002 18:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify.
There is no such status as a"Fuel Emergency" in the UK. If you use this phraseology UK controllers are instructed to ask if you are declaring an Emergency. As stated above, the waves will then part and you will be whisked to the front of the queue.
The correct words of course are the "PAN" phraseology, or if things really are dire "MAYDAY". Both will get everybodies attention, whatever the hour of the day.
The subject of Fuel carriage often comes up. When ATC in the UK says "No delay expected" this can mean up to 20 minutes in the hold . FIVE times around. No EATs are issued. Today we can be quite a bit more accurate with the expected delay, but don't rely on it for fuel planning purposes as we may not update the time if it remains within the 20 mins. If EATs change significantly we MUST tell you asap, hence they can be relied upon a little more for Fuel planning purposes.
So if you hear the words "no delay expected". This can mean up to 20 mins holding. Does your fuel reserve allow for this I wonder?
off we go....
Still just another number
posted 18th April 2002 18:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify.
There is no such status as a"Fuel Emergency" in the UK. If you use this phraseology UK controllers are instructed to ask if you are declaring an Emergency. As stated above, the waves will then part and you will be whisked to the front of the queue.
The correct words of course are the "PAN" phraseology, or if things really are dire "MAYDAY". Both will get everybodies attention, whatever the hour of the day.
The subject of Fuel carriage often comes up. When ATC in the UK says "No delay expected" this can mean up to 20 minutes in the hold . FIVE times around. No EATs are issued. Today we can be quite a bit more accurate with the expected delay, but don't rely on it for fuel planning purposes as we may not update the time if it remains within the 20 mins. If EATs change significantly we MUST tell you asap, hence they can be relied upon a little more for Fuel planning purposes.
So if you hear the words "no delay expected". This can mean up to 20 mins holding. Does your fuel reserve allow for this I wonder?
off we go....
Well, I'm still alive, still short of fuel, but now on two engines permanently, and turned a fetching shade of orange ...
Same S**t, Different Day.
ATB
Antigua
Last edited by Antigua; 6th Apr 2004 at 12:59.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M. Mouse, lamina, others
My point has nothing to do with JAR-OPS fuel policy, just airmanship.
Let's assume you are unfortunate (careless...?) enough to arrive at OCK or wherever, and the only way you can hold for 20 mins is to use your diversion fuel.
20 mins later, you have only one option: land at LHR. If LHR closes for some reason, you're toast. If the EATs suddenly extend by 20 mins, you're toast. if somebody screws up in front of you on approach, you are (probably) toast.
If you divert, you get to your divert and it closes, you are still toast. If you get halfway there and it shuts, you can still get back. See the point? Diverting does give you slightly more in the way of options (but only slightly). Both situations are undesirable, but one gives you better odds than the other.
The point is, arriving with so little fuel that you have to use your divert fuel at all for holding is stupid. You either carry enough fuel in the first place, or you tech-stop. To do anything else lacks sense.
Or maybe somebody can explain to me how stretching fuel to absolute minimums is sensible...???
My point has nothing to do with JAR-OPS fuel policy, just airmanship.
Let's assume you are unfortunate (careless...?) enough to arrive at OCK or wherever, and the only way you can hold for 20 mins is to use your diversion fuel.
20 mins later, you have only one option: land at LHR. If LHR closes for some reason, you're toast. If the EATs suddenly extend by 20 mins, you're toast. if somebody screws up in front of you on approach, you are (probably) toast.
If you divert, you get to your divert and it closes, you are still toast. If you get halfway there and it shuts, you can still get back. See the point? Diverting does give you slightly more in the way of options (but only slightly). Both situations are undesirable, but one gives you better odds than the other.
The point is, arriving with so little fuel that you have to use your divert fuel at all for holding is stupid. You either carry enough fuel in the first place, or you tech-stop. To do anything else lacks sense.
Or maybe somebody can explain to me how stretching fuel to absolute minimums is sensible...???
Controversial, moi?
Thank you so much for brightening my day RD, if that is an example of your logical thinking I would hate to see you when you are confused.
I so wish I lived in a black and white world that so many on this thread seem to inhabit.
Oh and 411A, you forget that most US airlines don't appear to actually have to make money to survive.
I so wish I lived in a black and white world that so many on this thread seem to inhabit.
Oh and 411A, you forget that most US airlines don't appear to actually have to make money to survive.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M. Mouse
The best sign of a befuddled mind is an inability to argue the point with logic and a reasoned response.
As you have demonstrated neither, I assume you don't actually have a reasoned response.
A lot of aviation is very black and white indeed. SOPs. Assigned altitudes and headings. Appproach procedures. In fact, most of aviation, if you think about it.
The bits that aren't, require judgement. A wise pilot errs on the side of caution, a foolish one throws caution to the wind, usually in the quest to be "on time", or "on message" in some airlines.
Now please explain again, using small words and illustrations, why running around with minimum possible fuel is a smart move...
The best sign of a befuddled mind is an inability to argue the point with logic and a reasoned response.
As you have demonstrated neither, I assume you don't actually have a reasoned response.
A lot of aviation is very black and white indeed. SOPs. Assigned altitudes and headings. Appproach procedures. In fact, most of aviation, if you think about it.
The bits that aren't, require judgement. A wise pilot errs on the side of caution, a foolish one throws caution to the wind, usually in the quest to be "on time", or "on message" in some airlines.
Now please explain again, using small words and illustrations, why running around with minimum possible fuel is a smart move...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of years ago there was a thread here about people carrying extra fuel V those that didn't.
Some bright spark said at the time, if it's a nice day then I'll just take minimum fuel, if it's a bit dodgy, I'll take some extra.
Well it can be seen through this thread that on NO DAY should we just take minimum fuel EVER. It could be on a nice day when your options run out for whatever reason.
I for one ALWAYS take extra fuel as it is for that unforseen reason that I might need it one day. Perhaps a day when airplanes become like a huge shoal of fish?
Some bright spark said at the time, if it's a nice day then I'll just take minimum fuel, if it's a bit dodgy, I'll take some extra.
Well it can be seen through this thread that on NO DAY should we just take minimum fuel EVER. It could be on a nice day when your options run out for whatever reason.
I for one ALWAYS take extra fuel as it is for that unforseen reason that I might need it one day. Perhaps a day when airplanes become like a huge shoal of fish?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason extra fuel is not encouraged is the cost involved. On a long range to LHR, you will burn one third carrying it. So 6 tons on top at SIN or BKK will be 4 tons at LHR, quite possibly leading to offloading pax or cargo to cget 6 tons on board. Any wonder policy is not to carry extra fuel unless there is a good reason? Contingency is not much, and can easily be used up (and more) if height restricted.
I will either divert very early or enter the hold with the firm intention of committing to destination. I see no reason to then easily divert from a destination with 2 runways to a single runway alternate where your problems can be worse- my experiences of diverting have always been total chaos- even from LHR to LGW.
I would have more patience with someone who felt he had been inadvertently misled about an EAT. Just last summer I was caught out and had to declare 'Pan' on a go-aroundn with already low fuel. It is a horrible feeling. Diverting is not the panacea people make out.
I will either divert very early or enter the hold with the firm intention of committing to destination. I see no reason to then easily divert from a destination with 2 runways to a single runway alternate where your problems can be worse- my experiences of diverting have always been total chaos- even from LHR to LGW.
I would have more patience with someone who felt he had been inadvertently misled about an EAT. Just last summer I was caught out and had to declare 'Pan' on a go-aroundn with already low fuel. It is a horrible feeling. Diverting is not the panacea people make out.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is, that were an incident to close a runway at LHR, the subsequent chaos might well push many folk carrying mimimum fuel to a dangerous position.
Nobody wants to divert, but sometimes it is the only prudent move. Would you have ended up with a PAN if you had diverted?
I think the point is that prudent fuel management is about NOT getting into a position where you elect to use your last safety margin in an all-or-nothing hold and approach. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why stretching everything to the limit is a sensible move.
Nobody wants to divert, but sometimes it is the only prudent move. Would you have ended up with a PAN if you had diverted?
I think the point is that prudent fuel management is about NOT getting into a position where you elect to use your last safety margin in an all-or-nothing hold and approach. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why stretching everything to the limit is a sensible move.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NotSo
Therein lies the problem with a lot of aviation decisions today. Money. Whilst every aviation professional needs to be a bean counter in order for companies to survive, we should be safety experts first and foremost. Should you find yourself in the clag overhead LHR what would you rather have on board, 4 tonnes of oranges or 4 tonnes of fuel!
Therein lies the problem with a lot of aviation decisions today. Money. Whilst every aviation professional needs to be a bean counter in order for companies to survive, we should be safety experts first and foremost. Should you find yourself in the clag overhead LHR what would you rather have on board, 4 tonnes of oranges or 4 tonnes of fuel!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m concerned about those aircraft routinely arriving at LHR with ‘committing fuel’. In the past few years, Heathrow has been shut by a fire in the Tower, a flood, a Terminal fire, and a suspicious vehicle parked outside the tower.
Just last week we were downwind when the call came ‘Prepare for diversion, we may have to evacuate the Tower’.
Believe me people, the fuel you save by driving round on fumes is MINISCULE on Euro-flights. If your flight is ballistic (like <1hr) you’d be lucky to save a couple of pints. It makes ZERO sense to arrive at Heathrow unprepared for a half hour hold and a possible diversion. Maybe longhaul can't get the fuel on - OK, but there's no excuse for shorthaul.
Why do it? A bonus? Will you be the one that flames out on the unexpected go around? I can think of no more stupid thing to do in aviation.
Just last week we were downwind when the call came ‘Prepare for diversion, we may have to evacuate the Tower’.
Believe me people, the fuel you save by driving round on fumes is MINISCULE on Euro-flights. If your flight is ballistic (like <1hr) you’d be lucky to save a couple of pints. It makes ZERO sense to arrive at Heathrow unprepared for a half hour hold and a possible diversion. Maybe longhaul can't get the fuel on - OK, but there's no excuse for shorthaul.
Why do it? A bonus? Will you be the one that flames out on the unexpected go around? I can think of no more stupid thing to do in aviation.