Shock horror - Nigel has to wait.

[Justbelowcap]

Some interesting posts. Some weird and wonderful arguments, that is what makes flying interesting. Rather than concentrating on what people actually fly with we could concentrate on what is the legal minimum. And then just project ahead that someday that may be what everybody has in the BNN/OCK/LAM/BIG hold. Fuel is a very personal thing, I would suggest that the fact that there aren't multiple MAYDAY and diversions everyday would suggest that those professionals in the pointy end know what they are doing. So not talking about what you should carry but what you may carry.

Assuming all contingency has been used up (and we don't even have the good old 15mins any more at BA but that's another storey)

Within 2hrs of destination providing the destination has 2 RW's we can commit. We no longer need diversion fuel. Provided in the opinion of the Capt a safe landing is assured. Once we receive an EAT the requirement for 2 RW's no longer exists. We can plan to arrive with just reserve fuel. (As most EAT's involve holding this means in practise that you can go round the hold till you have Reserve plus what you anticipate for the approach.)

So the significance of an EAT is that is changes the parameters by which the flight crew make their decision. As such it should never be moved backwards.


Gonzo made a really interesting point about landing on Easterlies. Can you regard this as a twin RW operation? I have my doubts due to the length of time it takes to get 09R up and running. However calling it a single RW operation would mean that until we receive an EAT we couldn't dispense with diversion fuel.

[peterbuckstolemymeds]

Quote:

"Agreed. That's why you should carry extra gas when operating into the worlds busiest international airport."

Not to disrupt the rhythm of such a lively thread, but LHR's not been the world's busiest international airport for donkey's years, and that's one of the most pervasive untruths in the UK media.

Last time I looked it was ATL for pax and MEM for cargo. May have changed since, but LHR ain't even in the frame these days. Unless, maybe, you divide total movements by available runways...

pbsmm

[Raw Data]

I think they work it out on the basis of the number of building works in progress at any one time... or maybe the worlds most convoluted journey from check-in to aircraft...

[BEagle]

Make that car park to aircraft.....!

Truly dreadful and very tatty old place. Which is why I now (as SLF) use BHX instead. With the added advantage of no endless holding at LAM waiting for an approach when coming home.

When I taught people to fly long haul Air Transport (admittedly in the RAF so we didn't have quite the same 'commercial' pressure - although payload was always at a premium), the maxim was to ensure that the maximum payload weight was available to the end users. Captains were expected to correct the JetPlan fuel requirement as necessary, then decide on the final fuel load but should be able to justify much more than an extra tonne or 2 over the corrected CFP value. Many didn't realise that usually the 5% contingency would still be there at ETA, hence they normally had a comfortable margin before reaching their diversion fuel state. OK - so we didn't often use really big UK airports, but the same principles still applied whether landing at Dulles or Calgary in the rush hour or Hannover in the middle of the night. The concept of 'committing to' a single aerodrome without always having sufficient to divert if the bloke ahead burst a tyre was unheard of.

[52049er]

People seem to be missing the point. What those of us who are 'defending' committing to an airfield are NOT doing is championing only taking enough fuel to have no diversion available on arrival.

Take an aircraft that arrives at LAM with fuel to hold for 30 minutes, and still have fuel for an approach, lo level go around and diversion to LGW. This, in the assessment of some posters is very sensible airmanship into LHR. After 30 minutes ATC tell him that his approach will start in 10 minutes.

He has 2 choices

1) He diverts to LGW, and is thus effectively committed to landing there as he will not arrive with sufficient fuel to go anywhere else if someone closes the runway.

2) He uses the fuel he would have burnt getting to LGW to stay in the hold for LHR for 10 minutes more, and is thus effectively committed to landing there as he will not arrive with sufficient fuel to go anywhere else if someone closes the runway.

How on earth can 1) be "sensible" and 2) be "stupid" as they are exactly the same (except of course that No.2 has already been briefed, prepared for etc etc and in this case safer as there are 2 runways there).

It is impossible to carry enough fuel to always keep an alternate at all times. Period. Knee jerk reactions in the stylee of the Daily Mail "Shock as Passenger jet had no choice to but to land on Hounslow school if runway closed" do not further an interesting debate.

So, is it safer to commit to a destination, or commit to an alternate?

[triple smudge]

Hi all.

Here's a quote from Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations":

"You know what I dislike most about these guys? They're always so certain. They're always 100 percent sure of what they're saying. Even if it's wrong. It must be a great feeling..."

I've read through this thread and some contributors have used words like "stupid", "madness", "seems simple to me", "it's the law", "period", and "FAA would put you out of business".

I'm hoping for "horse pucky" next.

This is the nature of a good rumour forum like this. All great stuff.

Some people still insist that it is a sin against nature to use diversion fuel in the hold. Many contributors have tried to make the following point, so I will too:

Imagine you are in the hold at a place where conditions are good. You are starting to use your diversion fuel. You can:

Option 1. Stay at your present airfield.
Option 2. Divert immediately to your diversion airfield. This will use up your diversion fuel.

The "madness" brigade would shout that option 1 MIGHT mean that you end up with no diversion fuel. Please note that this is the situation you WILL end up with if you choose option 2! You get to your diversion airfield without diversion fuel because you've used it to divert! AHHHHH!!! So, recap:

Option 1. You're at an airfield with fuel = diversion + reserve.
Option 2. You're at an airfield with fuel = reserve.

IF all other things are equal, which is the better situation? I've put the answer at the bottom of this posting so you can't cheat.*

Just because you've labelled that extra fuel "diversion fuel" doesn't mean it serves a higher purpose if you actually go to a different airfield.

Of course, it's not always that simple. Diversion airfields have to meet certain criteria on the day, including forecast weather within certain limits. So, if you are in the hold because of thunderstorms over your destination, or thick fog at a non-CAT III destination, or some airport related problem causing indeterminate delays, would you use your diversion fuel to hold? No.

I think that is what gets forgotten. We aren't blindly following a rule to stay at destination, and we aren't taking risks. What worries me is people who say we are doing so, and would rather we blindly follow a rule to divert to another airfield the minute the fuel reaches a certain level (simple period full stop no messin'), with no thought given to what our new situation will be like when we get to that airfield.

Smudge

(*answer: option 1)

My goodness... hello 52049er, we seem to have had the same idea within 5 minutes of each other! Is one of us telepathic?

(hint: No).

Maybe I should change mine to "er, see above".

Regards

Smudge

[52049er]

May I be the first to commend you on an excellent, well argued post

[fruitbat]

The new CIRRUS system at BA uses statistical data that is time of day and aircraft type specific to work out contingency fuel. Rather than just use 15 minutes as per SWORD, the new system knows when are the busy times (don't say always!). Hence arriving from Italy into LHR recently at 0930 we had 27 minutes cont fuel planned on CIRRUS. I have almost never seen it go below 15 minutes at LHR. However, arriving at Oslo at 10pm in good weather it is likely the cont fuel might be as low as 8 mins.

For once the system,at least on SH, seems to be working! And remember, one of our professional duties is to load more fuel if you think it is necessary. Let's not ever get into situation where the dispatchers make the decisions!

[Lapsed PPL]

CAA Aeronautical Information Circular

The CAA have obviously been worried enough about the subject in th past to have issued an Aeronautical Information Circular "Aeroplanes inbound to the UK with fuel reserves approaching minimum" - AIC 82/2003. http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P058.PDF
You may need to be registered to view this.
The AIC is quite specific about the amount of fuel to be planned for. Sorry, it's in pdf form so can't easily cut and paste.

[eyeinthesky]

QUOTE

Not to disrupt the rhythm of such a lively thread, but LHR's not been the world's busiest international airport for donkey's years, and that's one of the most pervasive untruths in the UK media.

Last time I looked it was ATL for pax and MEM for cargo. May have changed since, but LHR ain't even in the frame these days. Unless, maybe, you divide total movements by available runways...

UNQUOTE

You need to look carefully at the wording. It asserts that Heathrow is the world's busiest airport in terms of international (as opposed to domestic) movements, and I think that is still true. LHR is indeed a long way down in the league of total movements, but last time I checked (which was a while ago...) it topped the list of international moves.

Also sorry for going off on a tangent...

[Maximum]

Interesting thread.

On a quick read through it seems to me the question is about using diversion fuel at destination or diverting.

As none of us has a crystal ball, then no matter what extra fuel we plan to arrive with (within reason), if we're stuck in the hold longer than expected, then we will be faced with a decision.

Taking Heathrow as the example, then under JAR-OPS if certain criteria are fulfilled, then we may use our diversion fuel and stay there.

In practice it means on the odd occasion when totally unforeseen circumstances result in longer than expected delays, one can eat into the diversion fuel. Doesn't necessarily mean you will automatically use all the diversion fuel. Usually much more predictable than diverting.

In my experience this is a positive improvement on the old system, where a diversion had to be made no matter what at a pre-determined fuel figure.

At the very worst, you've burned down to what you would have been arriving with at the diversion anyway, so no difference in terms of what happens next at diversion or destination airfield.

So the question remains to those who advocate not using this part of JAR-OPS, what is the advantage in arriving at a diversion airfield with legal minimum fuel against staying at destination down to legal minimum fuel?

[planecrazi]

Should certain criteria be met within our SOP, we may nominate our destination LHR as the alternate as well, as it has two independent/2 different runways- runway ILS. We will arrive with our no delay (20 minutes holding fuel at BIG) and then commence the approach. Should for some reason we have a go-around/missed approach, we may return to LHR as opposed to setting course to LGW on a clear blue sunny day. Makes sense doesn't it.

This is when strict criteria is upheld that we may elect our destination as our alternate on the basis that two independant runways and ILS are available and we are not talking about a reciprical runway as this wouldn't work with wind or runway blockage.

A4, I hope this tries to clear an earlier point you didn't seem to understand. This decision to elect the destination is decided within one hour of arriving at destination and not at the last minute. It is caculated and planned as has the last 12 hours to get to LHR.

[Gonzo]

Not just on Easterlies. Quite often on westerlies too.

Let me just reiterate that........For the next x amount of years until T5 is finished, very often the 'departure' runway is closed to arrivals.

I think for the purposes of this thread, the fact that we can 'recall' the runway in a given timespan is irrelevant. What would be the effect of no landings at all at LHR for, say, half an hour? I'm guessing not many of those who were holding when the landing runway was closed would still be around ion the stacks!

[crosshatched]

Gonzo

Thats why Captains get paid all that money...to make a decision at the time. Probably good job we all don't make the same one.

Worrying about the second runway (or both) closing seems a bit pointless when if you had diverted to LGW the single runway could be blocked on arrival.

JAR-OPS gives us flexibility to make a valued judgement based on individual circumstances and experience. Long may it continue.

[Human Factor]

Here's one:

If someone piles into 27R in a 747, makes a hell of a mess and ties up the fire and rescue crews for a couple of hours, does this effect the RFF category at LHR for those now committed to land on 27L?

In practice, I feel that practicality is likely to overcome any restrictions but would be interested to know nevertheless.

[spekesoftly]

Another factor to consider is the capacity of other Airports to receive diversions. Years ago there was probably plenty of slack in the system, but with the burgeoning expansion of Locos etc, places like Stansted, Luton, Birmingham, Bristol etc, (to name but a few!) are getting much busier with their own traffic. 'Sods law' will eventually dictate that Heathrow's blocked runway will coincide with the alternates' rush hours.

[Gonzo]

Crosshatched,

Fair enough, and far be it from me to second guess a highly paid Captain , but I've come across more than a few flightcrew who assume that because there is no NOTAMed closure, both of our runways will always be open to landing aircraft, and thus think that committing to LHR is a far safer proposition than divving out. I'm saying that often it's not.

Human Factor,

No idea to be honest on the timescale of hearing about a decrease in RFF category. I'll ask in work tomorrow. I think in the situation you describe, someone 'piling in to' a runway, the airport would effectively close as part of the crisis response. Depends on your definition of 'committed', I guess.

We all know the rule that an aerodrome is unable to accept aircraft more than two categories above the declared RFF category, with various exceptions.....one of them is in an emergency situation. Now that would be ironic!

[Maximum]

Gonzo,

Fair enough, and far be it from me to second guess a highly paid Captain , but I've come across more than a few flightcrew who assume that because there is no NOTAMed closure, both of our runways will always be open to landing aircraft, and thus think that committing to LHR is a far safer proposition than divving out. I'm saying that often it's not.

But the point is that there are two runways available when the decision is made (amongst all the other criteria) - if not, then we're diverting!

Once again, the point needs to be made, when you arrive at your diversion airfield, the same risk exists that something may close the runway. Worst case scenario, the guy landing in front of you. Then what?

It feels like there's some "holier than thou" theme running through this thread with those decrying the decision to burn diversion fuel at destination taking the moral high ground.

I'd still love to know why diverting is safer.

[Gonzo]

Maximum,

I understand fully what you're saying, honestly. Maybe I'm not being clear in what I mean.

But the point is that there are two runways available when the decision is made (amongst all the other criteria)

What I'm trying to get across is how do you know that two runways are available? We don't put the fact that cranes are up on the ATIS, because they're up and down all day. The Apron Ops ring us to ask us to raise some cranes, we look on our copies of the permits to see what effect it has, and then say yes or no. If it precludes landing on one runway, we just turn off the appropriate ILS (after telling Radar) and the two air controllers have a bit of paper in front of them saying: "No landings 27L (say) due cranes"

I wasn't saying that I think it's safer to stay at destination buring diversion fuel, just that it's not automatically safer to bank on LHR having another runway always available if one is closed, thus is often no safer than a single runway airport.

[Hotel Mode]

Anyway if the cranes onlt affect the go around gradient and you're on a fuel emergency, its a bit academic cos you cant go around anyway.