Shock horror - Nigel has to wait.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UAE
Age: 59
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a regular visitor to Hounslow Aerodrome, but do frequent the London TMA on a regular basis.
To me the crux of the auguement is around the management of risk. This is something we do day in and day out. Manage the risk. As yet, no aircraft (correct me if wrong) has run out of fuel inbound London. There are obviously many cases where aircraft land on extreme fuel minimums, but to me that shows that the system is working, to the extent that no aircraft has been left with no juice at all. If airline management are consistently calling for minimum carriage of fuel, and diversions are necessary, surely after enough diversions, somebody in management will twig that perhaps the big picture savings will come from carrying a little extra fuel so that diversions are not so inclined.
Perhaps my naivety prevails here?
Bon chance!
To me the crux of the auguement is around the management of risk. This is something we do day in and day out. Manage the risk. As yet, no aircraft (correct me if wrong) has run out of fuel inbound London. There are obviously many cases where aircraft land on extreme fuel minimums, but to me that shows that the system is working, to the extent that no aircraft has been left with no juice at all. If airline management are consistently calling for minimum carriage of fuel, and diversions are necessary, surely after enough diversions, somebody in management will twig that perhaps the big picture savings will come from carrying a little extra fuel so that diversions are not so inclined.
Perhaps my naivety prevails here?
Bon chance!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Nobody wants to divert, but sometimes it is the only prudent move. Would you have ended up with a PAN if you had diverted?>
The occasion was a good forecast in the summer months. Unexpected fog on arrival, 25 minute holding, ops on longest approach runway due geese on best runway, aeroplanes missing turnoffs in fog due ground lights not working blocking runway. I consider no advantage would have been gained by diverting earlier to somewhere where you have no idea what the local problems are. The airline can't afford a significant proportion of diversions from destination (with 400+ aboard) or to have the aeroplanes ferrying umpteen tons of fuel around all the time. That is why EATs have a greater significance to pilots than just 'advisory', and that is why this pilot was agrieved.
The occasion was a good forecast in the summer months. Unexpected fog on arrival, 25 minute holding, ops on longest approach runway due geese on best runway, aeroplanes missing turnoffs in fog due ground lights not working blocking runway. I consider no advantage would have been gained by diverting earlier to somewhere where you have no idea what the local problems are. The airline can't afford a significant proportion of diversions from destination (with 400+ aboard) or to have the aeroplanes ferrying umpteen tons of fuel around all the time. That is why EATs have a greater significance to pilots than just 'advisory', and that is why this pilot was agrieved.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody (in my company at least) takes 'commit to LHR fuel'. We take enough to cover the vast, vast majority of occasions. What we cannot do is take enough every day to cover every single possible occurence, or we'd be out of business.
People still havn't answered the question - what is the difference between 'committing' to LHR, and 'committing' to a diversion airfield, which is what you are doing if you divert.
People still havn't answered the question - what is the difference between 'committing' to LHR, and 'committing' to a diversion airfield, which is what you are doing if you divert.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I got two questions.
1. How much does 100kg of fuel cost now ( I used to work on 20p/ltr ie £25)
2. How much holding fuel do you carry on a good day ?
No delay means 20mins of holding iaw AICs but my SOPS dont include holding fuel. A charter colleague once said he always carried 30 mins holding fuel to London (lucky fellow). I get 99% statistical contingency fuel (usually 5 - 15mins) and find it reliable 99% of the time. SOPS state extra fuel should not be carried unless there is a sound operational reason. If I anticipate a hold I put on what I think I require on top of contingency because if holding is anticipated its not an unexpected contingency (and I will be that unlucky 1%). Thats why I sometimes commit to a single r/w airport.
The captain is required to have enough fuel for the flight. Met forecasts are forecasts not a certainty. I am not psychic, and the met man is better at his forecasts then I am at second guesses. I am required to comply with company approved Jar Ops policy with the information I have. A policy which accepts very rare diversions as operational risks. To date in 25 years of flying I have only once diverted due unanticipated weather. I make fuel decisions to mitigate whats reasonablely expected, whilst complying with risk assessed SOP. I then set a bottom line according to circumstances at the time.
Now I've done it, wheres that diversion manual.
1. How much does 100kg of fuel cost now ( I used to work on 20p/ltr ie £25)
2. How much holding fuel do you carry on a good day ?
No delay means 20mins of holding iaw AICs but my SOPS dont include holding fuel. A charter colleague once said he always carried 30 mins holding fuel to London (lucky fellow). I get 99% statistical contingency fuel (usually 5 - 15mins) and find it reliable 99% of the time. SOPS state extra fuel should not be carried unless there is a sound operational reason. If I anticipate a hold I put on what I think I require on top of contingency because if holding is anticipated its not an unexpected contingency (and I will be that unlucky 1%). Thats why I sometimes commit to a single r/w airport.
The captain is required to have enough fuel for the flight. Met forecasts are forecasts not a certainty. I am not psychic, and the met man is better at his forecasts then I am at second guesses. I am required to comply with company approved Jar Ops policy with the information I have. A policy which accepts very rare diversions as operational risks. To date in 25 years of flying I have only once diverted due unanticipated weather. I make fuel decisions to mitigate whats reasonablely expected, whilst complying with risk assessed SOP. I then set a bottom line according to circumstances at the time.
Now I've done it, wheres that diversion manual.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly to identify myself - I work for Big Airways at LHR and fly as Captain around Europe. I have flown LH and SH ex LHR and LGW.
At present, I always look at the Flight Plan fuel as a minimum and positively look for reasons to take extra based on experience and the conditions on the day. On occasion I will change the alternate that has been (incorrectly) chosen by the computer. usually in good weather, it will mean loading up to 15 minutes max extra fuel (600kgs), but frequently 0 extra. This extra takes into account what I consider to be 'incorrect' diversion fuels to alternates.
My experience would suggest that on some (esp far East) routes that the room for manouvre re fuel is very limited, whereas for most other LH and virtually all SH flights it is not, and as NSF says, at 3.5-4% per hour burnt per tonne loaded, loading 10t extra ex SIN results in 5t being available at LHR = 25 minutes @ 1t per hold.
I would suggest as a solution that 25% of SH arrivals should be directed to load an 'extra' 40mins fuel, this would allow all other flights to load Flt Plan fuel, and ATC to resequence arrivals as necessary. In reality, the cost to the airlines of this would be negligible is the flights loading fuel were the ones inbound from high frequency origins such as CDG, AMS, BRU, DUS, CGN and domestics.
At present, I always look at the Flight Plan fuel as a minimum and positively look for reasons to take extra based on experience and the conditions on the day. On occasion I will change the alternate that has been (incorrectly) chosen by the computer. usually in good weather, it will mean loading up to 15 minutes max extra fuel (600kgs), but frequently 0 extra. This extra takes into account what I consider to be 'incorrect' diversion fuels to alternates.
My experience would suggest that on some (esp far East) routes that the room for manouvre re fuel is very limited, whereas for most other LH and virtually all SH flights it is not, and as NSF says, at 3.5-4% per hour burnt per tonne loaded, loading 10t extra ex SIN results in 5t being available at LHR = 25 minutes @ 1t per hold.
I would suggest as a solution that 25% of SH arrivals should be directed to load an 'extra' 40mins fuel, this would allow all other flights to load Flt Plan fuel, and ATC to resequence arrivals as necessary. In reality, the cost to the airlines of this would be negligible is the flights loading fuel were the ones inbound from high frequency origins such as CDG, AMS, BRU, DUS, CGN and domestics.
Raw Data
You seem to be almost wilfully missing the point.
…If you want to burn your divert fuel in the hold, fine. It is, however, exceedingly stupid to do so….
Why, necessarily? No logical argument to back up your sweeping assertion, which is as arrogant as it is wrong.
It might be exceedingly stupid, depending on the circumstances, or it might be an extremely sensible thing to do.
Whether you are short of fuel due to a poor fuel decision prior to departure, inefficient aircraft operation or adverse conditions unexpectedly encountered en-route makes no difference to the decision you now face.
You are airborne with a finite and diminishing amount of fuel and must choose the safest course of action, the one most likely to lead to a safe landing with reserve fuel still remaining. Following an assessment of all known factors, this may well be to divert, but equally it may well be to remain where you are.
I wonder sometimes if some of those who insist that an immediate diversion is always safer, regardless of the situations pertaining at destination and alternate, are merely worried about having to make a decision and being held accountable for it.
…Do none of your companies have a Final Reserve Fuel, that you should have more than on landing?...
Yes, all will have, and no one has suggested planning to land with less than this figure on board, so why raise such a complete red herring? It is irrelevant to this discussion which is about burning diversion fuel in the hold, not burning reserve fuel.
…Burn the hold fuel by all means, even the contingency…
So we can agree thus far. The question is what to do next.
You say always divert immediately, and again rather arrogantly state that to do anything else is …dodgy airmanship….
I say take account of all the known factors at your destination; EAT, weather, approach limits, number of available runways etc. and compare them with what you know about delays and weather at your alternate.
Then make a decision as to which airfield offers the better chance of being able to make an assured landing with reserve fuel still remaining.
Some pilots appear to think that somehow a diversion will always solve their fuel problems, whilst others appear to assume that blocked runways, fires, floods and bomb scares only ever occur at destination airfields, never diversion airfields.
Both groups may be in for a big shock one day.
If you are not happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means divert, but don’t do it without thinking about it.
If after considering the situation you decide that a landing at LHR is reasonably assured with at least reserve fuel remaining, then it may well be safer to remain at LHR. Provided the criteria for burning diversion fuel are met, that would be an eminently reasonable decision to make.
The point is that this policy allows you to do this, should you wish, under certain clearly defined circumstances, it does not compel you to do so.
Your decision and your responsibility.
Regards
Bellerophon
You seem to be almost wilfully missing the point.
…If you want to burn your divert fuel in the hold, fine. It is, however, exceedingly stupid to do so….
Why, necessarily? No logical argument to back up your sweeping assertion, which is as arrogant as it is wrong.
It might be exceedingly stupid, depending on the circumstances, or it might be an extremely sensible thing to do.
Whether you are short of fuel due to a poor fuel decision prior to departure, inefficient aircraft operation or adverse conditions unexpectedly encountered en-route makes no difference to the decision you now face.
You are airborne with a finite and diminishing amount of fuel and must choose the safest course of action, the one most likely to lead to a safe landing with reserve fuel still remaining. Following an assessment of all known factors, this may well be to divert, but equally it may well be to remain where you are.
I wonder sometimes if some of those who insist that an immediate diversion is always safer, regardless of the situations pertaining at destination and alternate, are merely worried about having to make a decision and being held accountable for it.
…Do none of your companies have a Final Reserve Fuel, that you should have more than on landing?...
Yes, all will have, and no one has suggested planning to land with less than this figure on board, so why raise such a complete red herring? It is irrelevant to this discussion which is about burning diversion fuel in the hold, not burning reserve fuel.
…Burn the hold fuel by all means, even the contingency…
So we can agree thus far. The question is what to do next.
You say always divert immediately, and again rather arrogantly state that to do anything else is …dodgy airmanship….
I say take account of all the known factors at your destination; EAT, weather, approach limits, number of available runways etc. and compare them with what you know about delays and weather at your alternate.
Then make a decision as to which airfield offers the better chance of being able to make an assured landing with reserve fuel still remaining.
Some pilots appear to think that somehow a diversion will always solve their fuel problems, whilst others appear to assume that blocked runways, fires, floods and bomb scares only ever occur at destination airfields, never diversion airfields.
Both groups may be in for a big shock one day.
If you are not happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means divert, but don’t do it without thinking about it.
If after considering the situation you decide that a landing at LHR is reasonably assured with at least reserve fuel remaining, then it may well be safer to remain at LHR. Provided the criteria for burning diversion fuel are met, that would be an eminently reasonable decision to make.
The point is that this policy allows you to do this, should you wish, under certain clearly defined circumstances, it does not compel you to do so.
Your decision and your responsibility.
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bellerophon
Sorry, I don't accept your premise at all.
My point was directed at those who routinely burn divert fuel in the hold. I never said that to do so was always incorrect- there will always be exceptions. The reality is, however, that on 90% of the days that this happens, the divert wx/operational ability is the same as, or better than, the destination. What I am challenging is the idea that it is routinely acceptable to do so, and more importantly the thinking and planning that results in pilots routinely having to do so.
Why? because you leave yourself with NO options. Surely this is the obvious, logical argument you seek.
The point about FRF is that it is the next casualty in the sort of thinking I am describing. By the way, diversion fuel is part of your reserves.
You say "If you are not happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means divert, but don’t do it without thinking about it.
I say If you are happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means remain, but don’t do it without thinking about it. But if you do, recognise that you have just cut your options in half, and are now completely committed to landing - which is the "dodgy airmanship" I was referring to.
You (and others) seem to have bought into a company line that running around on minimums (ie saving money) is just fine. You certainly make no mention of the possibility of a tech stop in your post, or an en-route divert when it becomes clear that your arrival at LHR will be with only divert fuel remaining (soon to be can-no-longer divert fuel). I don't accept that sort of narrow "must get there" thinking.
We all know that in many companies, a divert due fuel is going to be followed by tea and biscuits with your manager. The trend therefore seems to be to arrive at your destination, legs clenched, and hope like hell that it all works out. Anything to avoid a warm beverage and snack. I'm not sure which is worse, the intimidation itself or the way pilots so easily capitulate to it.
Hopefully one day you will realise that you owe it to your pax to get them to their destination in the greatest possible safety, with no corners cut and no unnecessary risks taken. Arriving at destination with so little fuel that you are forced to burn your divert reserve, does not satisfy that aim.
Another point for those who argue that keeping divert fuel when holding for a two-runway airfield is irrelevant: have you considered that many of the things that can close a runway unexpectedly, can close both? For example: an aircraft running off a runway could conceivably close both, as could a terrorist alert, closing the tower due fire or similar, etc etc etc.
bral
No, you can't plan for every outcome- but for the reasons already stated, one course of action gives you more possible outcomes than the other.
Sorry, I don't accept your premise at all.
My point was directed at those who routinely burn divert fuel in the hold. I never said that to do so was always incorrect- there will always be exceptions. The reality is, however, that on 90% of the days that this happens, the divert wx/operational ability is the same as, or better than, the destination. What I am challenging is the idea that it is routinely acceptable to do so, and more importantly the thinking and planning that results in pilots routinely having to do so.
Why? because you leave yourself with NO options. Surely this is the obvious, logical argument you seek.
The point about FRF is that it is the next casualty in the sort of thinking I am describing. By the way, diversion fuel is part of your reserves.
You say "If you are not happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means divert, but don’t do it without thinking about it.
I say If you are happy with how you see the situation at LHR developing, then by all means remain, but don’t do it without thinking about it. But if you do, recognise that you have just cut your options in half, and are now completely committed to landing - which is the "dodgy airmanship" I was referring to.
You (and others) seem to have bought into a company line that running around on minimums (ie saving money) is just fine. You certainly make no mention of the possibility of a tech stop in your post, or an en-route divert when it becomes clear that your arrival at LHR will be with only divert fuel remaining (soon to be can-no-longer divert fuel). I don't accept that sort of narrow "must get there" thinking.
We all know that in many companies, a divert due fuel is going to be followed by tea and biscuits with your manager. The trend therefore seems to be to arrive at your destination, legs clenched, and hope like hell that it all works out. Anything to avoid a warm beverage and snack. I'm not sure which is worse, the intimidation itself or the way pilots so easily capitulate to it.
Hopefully one day you will realise that you owe it to your pax to get them to their destination in the greatest possible safety, with no corners cut and no unnecessary risks taken. Arriving at destination with so little fuel that you are forced to burn your divert reserve, does not satisfy that aim.
Another point for those who argue that keeping divert fuel when holding for a two-runway airfield is irrelevant: have you considered that many of the things that can close a runway unexpectedly, can close both? For example: an aircraft running off a runway could conceivably close both, as could a terrorist alert, closing the tower due fire or similar, etc etc etc.
bral
No, you can't plan for every outcome- but for the reasons already stated, one course of action gives you more possible outcomes than the other.
Bellerophon, RD,
A good discussion this, I would be happy to be a pax with both of you when I consider that you both think about the problem.
RD, good points about problems that could shut both rwys but I'm not convinced that being half way between 2 airports gives you both of them as an alternate. I'm sure that if you wanted to return to the 1st one you'd be at the back of the Q. I'm also not sure if you're intimating that one should techstop when expecting to arrive at LHR with full Reserve plus Alternate but without any "extra" to cover more than the 20mins before EAT's are given?
A good discussion this, I would be happy to be a pax with both of you when I consider that you both think about the problem.
RD, good points about problems that could shut both rwys but I'm not convinced that being half way between 2 airports gives you both of them as an alternate. I'm sure that if you wanted to return to the 1st one you'd be at the back of the Q. I'm also not sure if you're intimating that one should techstop when expecting to arrive at LHR with full Reserve plus Alternate but without any "extra" to cover more than the 20mins before EAT's are given?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB
Being between two airports means you have two "last chances", whereas being at one with no fuel to divert means you have one "last chance". You wouldn't be at the back of the queue as with that much fuel, you'd be declaring a mayday. Trust me, the seas would part.
I would consider that at LHR (and other similar places) your contingency should allow for expected holding (ie 20 mins for example). Having said that, I would happily hold until I had reached the quantity that gives me a divert, approach and landing. There should be a "holding fuel" in your fuel plan reserve, use that for holding. BTW, using a diversion that can reasonably be expected to be subject to delay is somewhat foolhardy if you are going to run around with little fuel.
I would tech-stop or divert en-route if I thought I was going to arrive at LHR with only enough fuel to immediately divert (allowing for holding). You never need to arrive with so little fuel.
What I am challenging, is the idea that arriving with that level of fuel is acceptable, irrespective of the cause.
What really irks me is the thinking of people like global707, who seem to think that because there hasn't been a major accident at LHR due fuel, the system is somehow OK. There may not have been an accident, but there have been some very close calls- anybody remember Qantas a few years back? You could just as easily say that airliners should fly into LHR with only one fuel pump, because that has never caused an accident! In aviation, you don't work with the lowest common denominator.
So, going back to your point, being between two airports with little fuel is unwise- but so is being over one airport and committed because you have so little fuel.
It is the lack of fuel I am on about, not the decision making regarding diverts per se.
Being between two airports means you have two "last chances", whereas being at one with no fuel to divert means you have one "last chance". You wouldn't be at the back of the queue as with that much fuel, you'd be declaring a mayday. Trust me, the seas would part.
I would consider that at LHR (and other similar places) your contingency should allow for expected holding (ie 20 mins for example). Having said that, I would happily hold until I had reached the quantity that gives me a divert, approach and landing. There should be a "holding fuel" in your fuel plan reserve, use that for holding. BTW, using a diversion that can reasonably be expected to be subject to delay is somewhat foolhardy if you are going to run around with little fuel.
I would tech-stop or divert en-route if I thought I was going to arrive at LHR with only enough fuel to immediately divert (allowing for holding). You never need to arrive with so little fuel.
What I am challenging, is the idea that arriving with that level of fuel is acceptable, irrespective of the cause.
What really irks me is the thinking of people like global707, who seem to think that because there hasn't been a major accident at LHR due fuel, the system is somehow OK. There may not have been an accident, but there have been some very close calls- anybody remember Qantas a few years back? You could just as easily say that airliners should fly into LHR with only one fuel pump, because that has never caused an accident! In aviation, you don't work with the lowest common denominator.
So, going back to your point, being between two airports with little fuel is unwise- but so is being over one airport and committed because you have so little fuel.
It is the lack of fuel I am on about, not the decision making regarding diverts per se.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>I would tech-stop or divert en-route if I thought I was going to arrive at LHR with only enough fuel to immediately divert (allowing for holding).<<<
Sadly there are those who routinely plan to depart for Heathrow with this in tanks.
It’s astounding that so many aviation professionals can have such tunnel vision over such a critical subject. Even on a bright sunny day, a 20 minute hold at Heathrow should not compromise your plan for contingency and diversion.
The question of diversion is one of perception; the single runway to single runway scenario is valid. It is however only one of a number of factors to be taken into account. Should you, quite legally fly less than six hours to a CAVOK two runway airport, you need not have a diversion. You might consider however, the likelihood of that whole airport being denied you at the critical moment.
[ALLEGEDLY]A couple of years ago Heathrow lost all electrical power. It had negotiated an exemption from the statutory need to provide standby generators because it had two substations supplied by two separate branches of the National Grid. Unbeknown to the BAA, the grid had been altered and suffered a major high tension fault which blacked out both branches. Subsequently all of Heathrow including all ATC and navaids were knocked out.[/ALLEGEDLY]
With all of our infrastructure being squeezed by undesigned load and enthusiastic management, how wise is it to place all your eggs in one basket? Heathrow runs as tight as a drumskin. All you need is for the one in front to miss his exit, and your committing approach becomes a go-around on fumes. Tight visual circuit? Are you still good at those? You better get it right, because there’s no final final reserve.
You wouldn't leave without fire bottles, you wouldn't fly with only one generator, you wouldn't fly with only one hydraulic system, so why would you fly with only one chance? I simply don't understand the mentality, or see the rewards.
(edited to keep Danny's lawyers happy)
Sadly there are those who routinely plan to depart for Heathrow with this in tanks.
It’s astounding that so many aviation professionals can have such tunnel vision over such a critical subject. Even on a bright sunny day, a 20 minute hold at Heathrow should not compromise your plan for contingency and diversion.
The question of diversion is one of perception; the single runway to single runway scenario is valid. It is however only one of a number of factors to be taken into account. Should you, quite legally fly less than six hours to a CAVOK two runway airport, you need not have a diversion. You might consider however, the likelihood of that whole airport being denied you at the critical moment.
[ALLEGEDLY]A couple of years ago Heathrow lost all electrical power. It had negotiated an exemption from the statutory need to provide standby generators because it had two substations supplied by two separate branches of the National Grid. Unbeknown to the BAA, the grid had been altered and suffered a major high tension fault which blacked out both branches. Subsequently all of Heathrow including all ATC and navaids were knocked out.[/ALLEGEDLY]
With all of our infrastructure being squeezed by undesigned load and enthusiastic management, how wise is it to place all your eggs in one basket? Heathrow runs as tight as a drumskin. All you need is for the one in front to miss his exit, and your committing approach becomes a go-around on fumes. Tight visual circuit? Are you still good at those? You better get it right, because there’s no final final reserve.
You wouldn't leave without fire bottles, you wouldn't fly with only one generator, you wouldn't fly with only one hydraulic system, so why would you fly with only one chance? I simply don't understand the mentality, or see the rewards.
(edited to keep Danny's lawyers happy)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wouldn't leave without fire bottles, you wouldn't fly with only one generator, you wouldn't fly with only one hydraulic system, so why would you fly with only one chance? I simply don't understand the mentality, or see the rewards.
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to bring your attention to a thread re the unfortunate LX safety landing due wx/fuel in 2002. 3/4 of that thread are the usual Swissair/Crossair fights, but apart from that, some good points were being raised.
In one of the last posts of that thread, somebody wrote, quote:
Please allow a humble question from a non-pilot: Is that something widely practised in Europe today?? I could not believe it when I read it!
In one of the last posts of that thread, somebody wrote, quote:
Interestingly, at our last ground refresher, we were told that on a flight to BSL, admitedly in fine weather, we do not have to plan an alternate. Look at the chart, crossing runways, and ILS on 16 and only circling approaches to two of the other runways.
For the past 18 years I have been wilfully ignoring my employers fuel policy. Whilst I fully understand the commercial argument for reducing "extra" fuel, a glance at my fuel remaining stats tells an interesting story. When climbing aboard our 777's I can't help noticing that the fuel remaining figure from the previous sector is often 2 or 3 tonnes less than my typical figure. I have on a number of occasions seen so little left over that an Air Safety report had to be filed. (By the previous crew not me)
As a result I have never diverted from my planned destination because of fuel shortage. In fact I have only diverted 3 times, twice for weather and one medical.
This does not mean I simply fill the tanks regardless.
If my destination is known to be busy (LHR,ORD,EWR etc) and there are forecast weather problems I will load sufficient fuel to allow extended holding over and above contingency. I also allow extra for departure delays where my experience shows this as necessary. The 777 is not very critical on flight levels (within reason) but I can usually sweet talk my way to within 4000 ft of optimum.
To reassure our "paying guests" I am not alone in applying sensible fuel decisions - after all the fuel I leave is still available for the next sector...........
As a result I have never diverted from my planned destination because of fuel shortage. In fact I have only diverted 3 times, twice for weather and one medical.
This does not mean I simply fill the tanks regardless.
If my destination is known to be busy (LHR,ORD,EWR etc) and there are forecast weather problems I will load sufficient fuel to allow extended holding over and above contingency. I also allow extra for departure delays where my experience shows this as necessary. The 777 is not very critical on flight levels (within reason) but I can usually sweet talk my way to within 4000 ft of optimum.
To reassure our "paying guests" I am not alone in applying sensible fuel decisions - after all the fuel I leave is still available for the next sector...........
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bral
Geez I wish you would read first before typing!
I didn't say that anyone was breaking the law. What I did say was that anybody who disobeys their Ops Manual is breaking the law. That's what the CAA told me when I was writing one some years ago, and unless Flying Lawyer or somebody knows differently, that is the way it is.
Ops Manuals are frequently more restrictive than JAR-OPS. For example, the Ops Manual of the regional airline I work for does not allow me to depart without an alternate, irrespective of weather conditions or anything else.
There is no argument about choice of alternate...
Geez I wish you would read first before typing!
I didn't say that anyone was breaking the law. What I did say was that anybody who disobeys their Ops Manual is breaking the law. That's what the CAA told me when I was writing one some years ago, and unless Flying Lawyer or somebody knows differently, that is the way it is.
Ops Manuals are frequently more restrictive than JAR-OPS. For example, the Ops Manual of the regional airline I work for does not allow me to depart without an alternate, irrespective of weather conditions or anything else.
There is no argument about choice of alternate...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah ! But....
the public know that all jet pilots dump fuel shortly before landing !
Hence the low minimums found at the start of the next sector Holmes!
I have taken this on board and now regularly stop my car just before arriving at friends to drain petrol onto their road.
Tip for Nigels et al.
Before commencing your flight ensure that it can be safely terminated.
Sir George Cayley
Hence the low minimums found at the start of the next sector Holmes!
I have taken this on board and now regularly stop my car just before arriving at friends to drain petrol onto their road.
Tip for Nigels et al.
Before commencing your flight ensure that it can be safely terminated.
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UAE
Age: 59
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RD
'What really irks me is the thinking of people like global707, who seem to think that because there hasn't been a major accident at LHR due fuel, the system is somehow OK. There may not have been an accident, but there have been some very close calls- anybody remember Qantas a few years back? You could just as easily say that airliners should fly into LHR with only one fuel pump, because that has never caused an accident! In aviation, you don't work with the lowest common denominator.'
The point I try and make is that the system (JAR rules, Company Ops Manual etc) has built in to it, a degree a safety (redundancy if you like) Add onto that the good common sense (airmanship) of the Commander of the day and we are back to my point of managing the risk.
As Bral infers, the chances of everything happening together on the same day, is minimal.
'What really irks me is the thinking of people like global707, who seem to think that because there hasn't been a major accident at LHR due fuel, the system is somehow OK. There may not have been an accident, but there have been some very close calls- anybody remember Qantas a few years back? You could just as easily say that airliners should fly into LHR with only one fuel pump, because that has never caused an accident! In aviation, you don't work with the lowest common denominator.'
The point I try and make is that the system (JAR rules, Company Ops Manual etc) has built in to it, a degree a safety (redundancy if you like) Add onto that the good common sense (airmanship) of the Commander of the day and we are back to my point of managing the risk.
As Bral infers, the chances of everything happening together on the same day, is minimal.
Raw Data
…You (and others) seem to have bought into a company line that running around on minimums (ie saving money) is just fine…
I have never said that and I don’t believe it. Kindly do not ascribe views to me that I don’t hold, haven’t posted, and have never espoused.
I relied to Artificial Horizon on the narrow point of the legality and wisdom of burning diversion fuel in the hold. I later took pains to try and emphasise this was the sole point I was discussing by saying:
…Whether you are short of fuel due to a poor fuel decision prior to departure, inefficient aircraft operation or adverse conditions unexpectedly encountered en-route makes no difference to the decision you now face….
I note that on this point you have changed your position and now say:
… My point was directed at those who routinely burn divert fuel in the hold. I never said that to do so was always incorrect…
I’m glad to hear it, as that was my point and it seems you now accept it. Let me remind you of what you said however:
… If you want to burn your divert fuel in the hold, fine. It is, however, exceedingly stupid to do so...
…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…
It rather sounds like you did to me.
…You certainly make no mention of the possibility of a tech stop in your post, or an en-route divert when it becomes clear that your arrival at LHR will be with only divert fuel remaining…
Again, you have broadened this discussion into areas I have not previously commented on, and seem to be trying to ascribe views to me which I do not hold.
I am quite happy to arrive at LHR with only divert fuel remaining provided the weather is adequate and I am not aware of an unacceptable EAT.
I am not happy to arrive at LHR in poor weather and/or significant delays with only divert fuel and will do something about it; at the planning stage if I am able, by loading more fuel to cover the estimated delays, or in flight by economising on fuel usage, selecting a nearer alternate, or by tech stopping if all else fails.
…We all know that in many companies, a divert due fuel is going to be followed by tea and biscuits with your manager….
It sounds as if this is an area where you may well have more experience than I.
I have never been asked to explain a fuel decision, either after a diversion, or after a landing at destination with ”excess” fuel remaining, other than by a trainee or a co-pilot; and I have never been called into an office by a manager to explain a diversion.
…The trend therefore seems to be to arrive at your destination, legs clenched, and hope like hell that it all works out. Anything to avoid a warm beverage and snack. I'm not sure which is worse, the intimidation itself or the way pilots so easily capitulate to it…
Apart from general pressure to try and reduce fuel carriage and fuel burn; common to most airlines I suspect; I have never been subject to any intimidation in my company, nor heard of colleagues being subjected to it, far less capitulating to it.
If you have evidence of this occurring, then the SRG department of the CAA would seem to be the place to send it. Perhaps you’ll let us know what they say?
…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?...
You will then land at destination with less than Reserve Fuel remaining, the same scenario as if you stayed at your destination, burned some of your diversion fuel, and then had the destination unexpectedly close.
You would now have to divert, and would land at (an) alternate with less than Reserve Fuel remaining. Both events result in a MAYDAY call, and a low fuel landing, something we are trying to avoid.
At the risk of boring everyone to death, let me repeat my sole point one last time.
If, for whatever reason, you find yourself in the hold at LHR, and are down to diversion plus reserve fuel, then before you divert, you take account of all the known factors at your destination and compare them with the known factors at your alternate.
Then you make a decision as to which airfield offers you the better chance of being able to make a safe and assured landing, with reserve fuel still remaining.
Simple, sensible, legal and good airmanship.
…Hopefully one day you will realise that you owe it to your pax to get them to their destination in the greatest possible safety…
One of the very few aviation claims I would ever make about myself is that, until recently, I had routinely been safely managing minimum fuel levels, on both sides of the Atlantic, for many years.
I am very much aware of my professional responsibilities towards my passengers, so please spare me any more patronising little homilies.
Regards
Bellerophon
…You (and others) seem to have bought into a company line that running around on minimums (ie saving money) is just fine…
I have never said that and I don’t believe it. Kindly do not ascribe views to me that I don’t hold, haven’t posted, and have never espoused.
I relied to Artificial Horizon on the narrow point of the legality and wisdom of burning diversion fuel in the hold. I later took pains to try and emphasise this was the sole point I was discussing by saying:
…Whether you are short of fuel due to a poor fuel decision prior to departure, inefficient aircraft operation or adverse conditions unexpectedly encountered en-route makes no difference to the decision you now face….
I note that on this point you have changed your position and now say:
… My point was directed at those who routinely burn divert fuel in the hold. I never said that to do so was always incorrect…
I’m glad to hear it, as that was my point and it seems you now accept it. Let me remind you of what you said however:
… If you want to burn your divert fuel in the hold, fine. It is, however, exceedingly stupid to do so...
…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…
It rather sounds like you did to me.
…You certainly make no mention of the possibility of a tech stop in your post, or an en-route divert when it becomes clear that your arrival at LHR will be with only divert fuel remaining…
Again, you have broadened this discussion into areas I have not previously commented on, and seem to be trying to ascribe views to me which I do not hold.
I am quite happy to arrive at LHR with only divert fuel remaining provided the weather is adequate and I am not aware of an unacceptable EAT.
I am not happy to arrive at LHR in poor weather and/or significant delays with only divert fuel and will do something about it; at the planning stage if I am able, by loading more fuel to cover the estimated delays, or in flight by economising on fuel usage, selecting a nearer alternate, or by tech stopping if all else fails.
…We all know that in many companies, a divert due fuel is going to be followed by tea and biscuits with your manager….
It sounds as if this is an area where you may well have more experience than I.
I have never been asked to explain a fuel decision, either after a diversion, or after a landing at destination with ”excess” fuel remaining, other than by a trainee or a co-pilot; and I have never been called into an office by a manager to explain a diversion.
…The trend therefore seems to be to arrive at your destination, legs clenched, and hope like hell that it all works out. Anything to avoid a warm beverage and snack. I'm not sure which is worse, the intimidation itself or the way pilots so easily capitulate to it…
Apart from general pressure to try and reduce fuel carriage and fuel burn; common to most airlines I suspect; I have never been subject to any intimidation in my company, nor heard of colleagues being subjected to it, far less capitulating to it.
If you have evidence of this occurring, then the SRG department of the CAA would seem to be the place to send it. Perhaps you’ll let us know what they say?
…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?...
You will then land at destination with less than Reserve Fuel remaining, the same scenario as if you stayed at your destination, burned some of your diversion fuel, and then had the destination unexpectedly close.
You would now have to divert, and would land at (an) alternate with less than Reserve Fuel remaining. Both events result in a MAYDAY call, and a low fuel landing, something we are trying to avoid.
At the risk of boring everyone to death, let me repeat my sole point one last time.
If, for whatever reason, you find yourself in the hold at LHR, and are down to diversion plus reserve fuel, then before you divert, you take account of all the known factors at your destination and compare them with the known factors at your alternate.
Then you make a decision as to which airfield offers you the better chance of being able to make a safe and assured landing, with reserve fuel still remaining.
Simple, sensible, legal and good airmanship.
…Hopefully one day you will realise that you owe it to your pax to get them to their destination in the greatest possible safety…
One of the very few aviation claims I would ever make about myself is that, until recently, I had routinely been safely managing minimum fuel levels, on both sides of the Atlantic, for many years.
I am very much aware of my professional responsibilities towards my passengers, so please spare me any more patronising little homilies.
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very well global707, but when Murphy's law is at work, it all stacks up against you, and you just may find yourself up s**t creek without a paddle
The requirement to arrive in the LHR TMA with a minimum of twenty minutes holding fuel (considered no delay) has been just that, a requirement for a very long time.
And yes, I have personally had cargo offloaded to meet that very basic condition.
To ignore is very poor judgement, IMO.
And, to 'commit' to LHR under all but the most extreme circumstances, is likewise.
The requirement to arrive in the LHR TMA with a minimum of twenty minutes holding fuel (considered no delay) has been just that, a requirement for a very long time.
And yes, I have personally had cargo offloaded to meet that very basic condition.
To ignore is very poor judgement, IMO.
And, to 'commit' to LHR under all but the most extreme circumstances, is likewise.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
global707
Yes, I can see where you are going, but the fact is that people routinely arrive at destinations like LHR with very little fuel. The fact that there hasn't yet been an incident is more luck than good management.
Bellerophon
I don't have the time to respond to all of your somewhat verbose post, so let me pick out a few bits.
First, no changes in position. I was responding to the assertion made by justbelowcap:
In other words, the practice is routine. I remain convinced that this is stupid and lacks sense.
I am not saying (or implying) that to commit to the airport you are holding at is always wrong, for example if your divert is a worse option. It is the practice quoted above I take issue with.
Excellent, we are in agreement then.
Not at all. I work for a company with more sense. However, the practice is fairly widespread - check out CHIRP for some examples. Also, I doubt there is any company in the UK that does not analyse their tech log fuel figures to see who is loading (or burning) more or less fuel than the average for a sector. Most companies will do nothing with the information unless they spot a particularly strong aberration.
You may wish to remove your head from the sand. It has happened. Read CHIRP.
If you can't see that one gives you more options than the other, there is little point discussing it further.
Yes, I can see where you are going, but the fact is that people routinely arrive at destinations like LHR with very little fuel. The fact that there hasn't yet been an incident is more luck than good management.
Bellerophon
I don't have the time to respond to all of your somewhat verbose post, so let me pick out a few bits.
First, no changes in position. I was responding to the assertion made by justbelowcap:
On a nice day most aircraft in the holds around LHR are using their diversion fuel to hold. It didn't used to be the case but it is now.
I am not saying (or implying) that to commit to the airport you are holding at is always wrong, for example if your divert is a worse option. It is the practice quoted above I take issue with.
I am not happy to arrive at LHR in poor weather and/or significant delays with only divert fuel and will do something about it; at the planning stage if I am able, by loading more fuel to cover the estimated delays, or in flight by economising on fuel usage, selecting a nearer alternate, or by tech stopping if all else fails.
It sounds as if this is an area (tea and biscuits) where you may well have more experience than I.
I have never been subject to any intimidation in my company, nor heard of colleagues being subjected to it, far less capitulating to it.
You will then land at destination with less than Reserve Fuel remaining, the same scenario as if you stayed at your destination, burned some of your diversion fuel, and then had the destination unexpectedly close.