BM FUEL PROBLEMS??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heathrow Director
"time will come when we won't be able to "help" guys who are short of fuel and they'll have to divert."
You've missed the point, it is possible that many of these aircraft have already commited to LHR i.e. only have fuel from hold to touchdown and final reserve fuel remaining at the time they declare a Mayday. However I would drop a few hints prior to finding myself in this situation
"time will come when we won't be able to "help" guys who are short of fuel and they'll have to divert."
You've missed the point, it is possible that many of these aircraft have already commited to LHR i.e. only have fuel from hold to touchdown and final reserve fuel remaining at the time they declare a Mayday. However I would drop a few hints prior to finding myself in this situation
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having worked for a few companies I detect a common thread linking those Captains who operate on minimum fuel. Invariably these types are trying to impress management with their 'superior' judgement. Older heads on the line have seen it before and wait with amusement for the inevitable diversion and/or landing on the bare minimum fuel. First Officers loathe these Captains because of the extra pressure they put on the day.
It is a pointless practice as the savings are minute when compared to the airlines other expenditure. Not least is the cost and havoc of a diversion.
The point I am making, and I don't know whether it applies to the airline mentioned in this thread, is that fuel policies are very sensitive matters. Just one little hint that the company would like you to save fuel and some ambitious type will chance it by showing he is better than the rest of the fleet.
Many years ago, having loaded extra fuel for a trip to the Mediteranean, we were caught out when sea fog obliterated our destination at the intermediate approach stage. The (unforecast) sea fog took out our alternate whilst diverting. Obviously the situation resolved itself otherwise I wouldn't be writing this thread.
I will never bow to any corporate silliness about 'the need to save' fuel. Try sitting up there with tanks running dry and nowhere to land. Its quite to most umpleasant experience imaginable.
[This message has been edited by Wig Wag (edited 06 May 2001).]
It is a pointless practice as the savings are minute when compared to the airlines other expenditure. Not least is the cost and havoc of a diversion.
The point I am making, and I don't know whether it applies to the airline mentioned in this thread, is that fuel policies are very sensitive matters. Just one little hint that the company would like you to save fuel and some ambitious type will chance it by showing he is better than the rest of the fleet.
Many years ago, having loaded extra fuel for a trip to the Mediteranean, we were caught out when sea fog obliterated our destination at the intermediate approach stage. The (unforecast) sea fog took out our alternate whilst diverting. Obviously the situation resolved itself otherwise I wouldn't be writing this thread.
I will never bow to any corporate silliness about 'the need to save' fuel. Try sitting up there with tanks running dry and nowhere to land. Its quite to most umpleasant experience imaginable.
[This message has been edited by Wig Wag (edited 06 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mighty mouse please may I ask?
At what "fuel endurence remaining time" do your "company procedures" require you to confess your combined judgements were incorrect and require a full Mayday call to the Heathrow director and to which airport will you proceed. Destination or alternate or nearest suitable or any?
If this is not actually written down, then your companies intent, by ommision, could be, to have your judgement which had already been proven wrong on your fuel load, again regarded as wrong as you obviously delayed too long the mayday call, and the whole crash was yours and "pilot error."
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
At what "fuel endurence remaining time" do your "company procedures" require you to confess your combined judgements were incorrect and require a full Mayday call to the Heathrow director and to which airport will you proceed. Destination or alternate or nearest suitable or any?
If this is not actually written down, then your companies intent, by ommision, could be, to have your judgement which had already been proven wrong on your fuel load, again regarded as wrong as you obviously delayed too long the mayday call, and the whole crash was yours and "pilot error."
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scanscan,
I think you will find all JAA operators have to have at least "final reserve" fuel remaining at touchdown. This is 30 minutes (holding mind, not G/A's etc which would eat it up much faster) endurance. I have never been close and hope I never do. This applies to destination and alternate. If at any time it appears that you might land with final reserve only you MUST declare a full mayday, so in the hold at LHR this would need to be at around 40-45 minutes remaining to allow an approach to be flown. Like I said, hope it never happens to me.
I think you will find all JAA operators have to have at least "final reserve" fuel remaining at touchdown. This is 30 minutes (holding mind, not G/A's etc which would eat it up much faster) endurance. I have never been close and hope I never do. This applies to destination and alternate. If at any time it appears that you might land with final reserve only you MUST declare a full mayday, so in the hold at LHR this would need to be at around 40-45 minutes remaining to allow an approach to be flown. Like I said, hope it never happens to me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A few years ago I was in the hold at Heathrow with about ten minutes to run before committing to final reserve or diverting. A BA B747 had an engine fire on finals and blocked RW 27L. Shortly afterwards a BA B757 called up stating he was '5 minutes to a fuel emergency'. The ILS was not radiating for RW27R and the B757 was offered an SRA. However . . . the cloudbase was below his minima.
For a couple of minutes there was an aircraft with insufficent fuel to divert flying round an airfield at which he could not land.
The pitch of the RT conversation rose noticeably whilst they switched on the ILS for RW27R. The holding traffic was given 'Delay not determined' which means no landing with final reserve.
JAR allows you to commit to landing at your destination. Whilst Heathrow has 2 runways it also has more traffic than any other airfield in the UK.
If operators plan on anything less than 20 minutes holding at Heathrow one day we will have a big problem. Sh*t happens despite the most cleverly crafted rules.
[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 07 May 2001).]
For a couple of minutes there was an aircraft with insufficent fuel to divert flying round an airfield at which he could not land.
The pitch of the RT conversation rose noticeably whilst they switched on the ILS for RW27R. The holding traffic was given 'Delay not determined' which means no landing with final reserve.
JAR allows you to commit to landing at your destination. Whilst Heathrow has 2 runways it also has more traffic than any other airfield in the UK.
If operators plan on anything less than 20 minutes holding at Heathrow one day we will have a big problem. Sh*t happens despite the most cleverly crafted rules.
[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 07 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
A 767 with 35 mins fuel remaining is already in a min fuel QRH situation.
Thus Boeing expect ALL fuel pumps on and crossfeeds open as this is an emergency fuel situation.
Boeings emergency checklist (non-normals) also cautions against accelerations and nose up attitudes i.e. go-arounds.
However they also have a directive requesting crews to switch off centre tank fuel pumps below 500 kgs remaining in centre tank, and to turn off the cross feeds.
It appeared to me that these two requirements were in conflict unless in a full fuel emergency then forget about possible impeller sparks blowing you out of the sky, and take a chance all is ok, as a greater emergency ie the engines stopping exists!!!
Should your fare paying passengers on the B767 be computer flight planned fueled for this situation as a sop??
Because of my confusion over this and nobody being prepared to commit to providing an acceptable explanation I fueled the 767 so that it bought me to the Boeing stated min fuel emergency load and checklist at the "end" of the thirty mins hold at 1500feet.
I would be grateful for any 767 pilots opinions on this aspect of 767 ops.
How it is explained by their trainers and the legal reasoning behind the decision to plan fuel into the emergency fuel checklist as a sop.
Is this a practice that would be fire proof in an accident investigation and subsequent court case? Or simple pilot error?
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
Thus Boeing expect ALL fuel pumps on and crossfeeds open as this is an emergency fuel situation.
Boeings emergency checklist (non-normals) also cautions against accelerations and nose up attitudes i.e. go-arounds.
However they also have a directive requesting crews to switch off centre tank fuel pumps below 500 kgs remaining in centre tank, and to turn off the cross feeds.
It appeared to me that these two requirements were in conflict unless in a full fuel emergency then forget about possible impeller sparks blowing you out of the sky, and take a chance all is ok, as a greater emergency ie the engines stopping exists!!!
Should your fare paying passengers on the B767 be computer flight planned fueled for this situation as a sop??
Because of my confusion over this and nobody being prepared to commit to providing an acceptable explanation I fueled the 767 so that it bought me to the Boeing stated min fuel emergency load and checklist at the "end" of the thirty mins hold at 1500feet.
I would be grateful for any 767 pilots opinions on this aspect of 767 ops.
How it is explained by their trainers and the legal reasoning behind the decision to plan fuel into the emergency fuel checklist as a sop.
Is this a practice that would be fire proof in an accident investigation and subsequent court case? Or simple pilot error?
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sounds as if it would be helpful if LHR and other UK airports provided such data:
http://www.atcscc.faa.gov/AADC/aadc.html
Makes it fairly simple to plan proper hold fuel.
http://www.atcscc.faa.gov/AADC/aadc.html
Makes it fairly simple to plan proper hold fuel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Since an ATCO started all this can i turn the discussion around a little. When i am sat at MAN about to launch for LHR with a slot delay on the ground why is it not possible for either...
ATC to give me an accurate prediction of the delays at LHR
Or, preferably, a slot at BNN to make to minimise the holding.
We have the technology to arrive at a given point at a prescribed time....
It seems ridiculous that a 30 min flight can experience 20 min delays on arrival. Particularly after being given a departure slot.
ATC to give me an accurate prediction of the delays at LHR
Or, preferably, a slot at BNN to make to minimise the holding.
We have the technology to arrive at a given point at a prescribed time....
It seems ridiculous that a 30 min flight can experience 20 min delays on arrival. Particularly after being given a departure slot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Company orders: 30 minutes of extra fuel to LHR or STN due extensive traffic. I rarely carry anything less when flying to any major european airport. Why?
Have you ever been heading for BRU when the wind changes to easterly (not forecasted) and they start landing on 02, and departing on 07R? I have.
Have you ever been on your way to FRA, with only moderate winds on the ground, but wind at 2000 ft is more than 50 knots? And they increase separation? I have.
Have you ever departed for PAR or AMS, and the forecasted 5000m in mist suddenly turns out to be 300m RVR in fog, fluctuating? I have.
Ever flown into LHR when the forecasted westerly winds change to SW at 50kts+, and they start landing on 23? I have.
Ever flown to LHR where they have 2 nice, long runways, thinking an accident on one will not stop operations on the other, only to find it does. Because all the rescue services are tied up with the accident on the blocked runway. I havn't, but my colleague did.
Ever flown to OSL only to find unexpected FZRA has closed the airport completely? I have.
JAR allows us to replan enroute, committing ourselves to a landing at destination, when certain requirements are met. One of them: The ATS situation indicates that a landing can be made without excessive delay.
You are in the hold, already used your contingency fuel because of inbound delays. How do you then defend your decision to commit yourself to a landing at your destination?
When managment starts to interfere with the commanders right to carry the fuel he wants, what do you get? You get MH flying on fumes into LHR. But hey, they never crashed, so they must have conducted their flights in a safe and economical manner. Or?
I'm lucky to fly for a company where we do not carry a voyage report, or a log detailing the spesifics of the flight. We need not specify why we carry extra fuel. No teaparties at the bosses office. Precisely the way it should be.
When things suddenly go from good to bad, and from bad to worse, I'm sitting quietly sipping my coffee, looking at all the lights blinking in the sky around me, listening to the squealing mice.
It may cost 20 $, but it's worth it.
Have you ever been heading for BRU when the wind changes to easterly (not forecasted) and they start landing on 02, and departing on 07R? I have.
Have you ever been on your way to FRA, with only moderate winds on the ground, but wind at 2000 ft is more than 50 knots? And they increase separation? I have.
Have you ever departed for PAR or AMS, and the forecasted 5000m in mist suddenly turns out to be 300m RVR in fog, fluctuating? I have.
Ever flown into LHR when the forecasted westerly winds change to SW at 50kts+, and they start landing on 23? I have.
Ever flown to LHR where they have 2 nice, long runways, thinking an accident on one will not stop operations on the other, only to find it does. Because all the rescue services are tied up with the accident on the blocked runway. I havn't, but my colleague did.
Ever flown to OSL only to find unexpected FZRA has closed the airport completely? I have.
JAR allows us to replan enroute, committing ourselves to a landing at destination, when certain requirements are met. One of them: The ATS situation indicates that a landing can be made without excessive delay.
You are in the hold, already used your contingency fuel because of inbound delays. How do you then defend your decision to commit yourself to a landing at your destination?
When managment starts to interfere with the commanders right to carry the fuel he wants, what do you get? You get MH flying on fumes into LHR. But hey, they never crashed, so they must have conducted their flights in a safe and economical manner. Or?
I'm lucky to fly for a company where we do not carry a voyage report, or a log detailing the spesifics of the flight. We need not specify why we carry extra fuel. No teaparties at the bosses office. Precisely the way it should be.
When things suddenly go from good to bad, and from bad to worse, I'm sitting quietly sipping my coffee, looking at all the lights blinking in the sky around me, listening to the squealing mice.
It may cost 20 $, but it's worth it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm delighted but surprised to see that most people do see beyond meeting the basic rules regarding fuel carriage, particularly when operating to very busy and unpredictable destinations such as Lhr.
I agree with Wig Wag that some individuals carry too little fuel in order to impress their superiors, and in addition to this some relatively junior fleet managers apply pressure on their crews in order to climb the greasy pole to more senior positions.
If this thread has made even one min. fuel merchant reconsider their actions, it has contributed to long term flight safety.
I agree with Wig Wag that some individuals carry too little fuel in order to impress their superiors, and in addition to this some relatively junior fleet managers apply pressure on their crews in order to climb the greasy pole to more senior positions.
If this thread has made even one min. fuel merchant reconsider their actions, it has contributed to long term flight safety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can anybody throw some light on the actual cost of carrying one ton extra for one hour. I heard it was around three quid!! Ok a lot when mulitplied by 50,000 flights but surely there must be easier ways of saving money on flights. I know of one ops person who claimed it was 'Those damn Pilots carrying all that fuel' for the financial state of the Airline' If I made mistakes that cost as much as ops decisions - I would have been sacked long ago!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It will cost apx 4% of the amount carried extra pr hr. Thats the general rule (jets) as I've heard it. 1000 kilos extra for a 1 hr flight will then cost about 40 kgs. Fuelprice vary from one destination to another, so the cost will vary. Here in Oslo, I belive it will cost you roughly 15 US.
Guest
Posts: n/a
max nightstop,
If MAN ATC were to phone us (TC Heathrow or TC Traffic Manager) up, we could give them a very accurate picture of current delays, and a sensible forecast for the next 45 mins or so (that's about as far as the EAT PC looks ahead) assuming nothing happens to affect capacity in the interim.
As for a slot at BOV, if you're represented in The Airline Group surely you'll get no delay
Having a pool of traffic in the holds is the best way for us to maximise the landing rate. For one it allows us to group similar types and keep the final topped up all of the time.
It's not the easiest thing to try and explain in detail on paper so I won't, come in and have a look sometime instead.
WF.
If MAN ATC were to phone us (TC Heathrow or TC Traffic Manager) up, we could give them a very accurate picture of current delays, and a sensible forecast for the next 45 mins or so (that's about as far as the EAT PC looks ahead) assuming nothing happens to affect capacity in the interim.
As for a slot at BOV, if you're represented in The Airline Group surely you'll get no delay
Having a pool of traffic in the holds is the best way for us to maximise the landing rate. For one it allows us to group similar types and keep the final topped up all of the time.
It's not the easiest thing to try and explain in detail on paper so I won't, come in and have a look sometime instead.
WF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
fluckbynight
To be pedantic I didn't actually say I didn't carry extra fuel because of cost I said that I don't carry it unless I need it because of cost.
If the unlikely happens then we should all stop ETOPS and start flying 3 and 4 engine jets across water again!
The point I am making is that risk management is a fact of life. My company has a sensible policy that works and has no problem with any of us taking extra if we feel we need it. But if we don't feel we need it then we take the minimum safe fuel.
Wig Wag
I have never come across anybody taking flight plan fuel to impress management. My management supply us with the information to make our own reasoned judgement (one of the few areas that I have no complaint!).
You say FOs hate Captains that take flight plan fuel. That is not the case in my company. I have had many sensible discussions with the FOs that I fly with (and of course I was one too) and broadly speaking they are happy with our company's fuel policy.
scanscanscan
Our company policy is that if it seems likely to land with less than thirty mins fuel remaining on touchdown a PAN call must be made and if it is definitely going to be the case a MAYDAY must be made.
Caractacus
If the 757 was in the hold for LHR he had several places to land apart from LHR depending on which hold he was in.
KADS
We do not have to justify our fuel decisions to management but we are asked to use our judgement and carry flight plan fuel when sensible.
If carrying extra fuel was not a significant cost issue why do all major airlines make such a big issue of it?
I recall my company adopting the practice of shutting down one engine on the '400 during taxy in. It saved £250,000 pa. Small saving in the overall scheme of things or prudent policy?
To be pedantic I didn't actually say I didn't carry extra fuel because of cost I said that I don't carry it unless I need it because of cost.
If the unlikely happens then we should all stop ETOPS and start flying 3 and 4 engine jets across water again!
The point I am making is that risk management is a fact of life. My company has a sensible policy that works and has no problem with any of us taking extra if we feel we need it. But if we don't feel we need it then we take the minimum safe fuel.
Wig Wag
I have never come across anybody taking flight plan fuel to impress management. My management supply us with the information to make our own reasoned judgement (one of the few areas that I have no complaint!).
You say FOs hate Captains that take flight plan fuel. That is not the case in my company. I have had many sensible discussions with the FOs that I fly with (and of course I was one too) and broadly speaking they are happy with our company's fuel policy.
scanscanscan
Our company policy is that if it seems likely to land with less than thirty mins fuel remaining on touchdown a PAN call must be made and if it is definitely going to be the case a MAYDAY must be made.
Caractacus
If the 757 was in the hold for LHR he had several places to land apart from LHR depending on which hold he was in.
KADS
We do not have to justify our fuel decisions to management but we are asked to use our judgement and carry flight plan fuel when sensible.
If carrying extra fuel was not a significant cost issue why do all major airlines make such a big issue of it?
I recall my company adopting the practice of shutting down one engine on the '400 during taxy in. It saved £250,000 pa. Small saving in the overall scheme of things or prudent policy?
Guest
Posts: n/a
M.Mouse:-
'If the 757 was in the hold for LHR he had several places to land apart from LHR depending on which hold he was in.'
The Speedbird B757 called up "5 minutes to a fuel emergency" because he had insufficient fuel to divert having committed himself to landing with (not less than) final reserve. Thus all alternates were no longer within reach. This was several years ago and presumably the BA fuel policy allowed landing with final reserve fuel only.
The signifigance of this being that the BA 757 thus had to wait for the airport to be available and hope that there was not a further deterioration in the situation to compound his problems.
How much more comfortable to have the extra fuel and hang the small cost of carrying it.
[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 09 May 2001).]
'If the 757 was in the hold for LHR he had several places to land apart from LHR depending on which hold he was in.'
The Speedbird B757 called up "5 minutes to a fuel emergency" because he had insufficient fuel to divert having committed himself to landing with (not less than) final reserve. Thus all alternates were no longer within reach. This was several years ago and presumably the BA fuel policy allowed landing with final reserve fuel only.
The signifigance of this being that the BA 757 thus had to wait for the airport to be available and hope that there was not a further deterioration in the situation to compound his problems.
How much more comfortable to have the extra fuel and hang the small cost of carrying it.
[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 09 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting subject....
I have to say I agree with M.Mouse.
In my company we carry alternate fuel, final reserve fuel and an extra amount of fuel, depending on flight number, with minimum 15 minutes. This extra fuel is a statisctically found number. The company monitors all flights and per flightnumber it is then decided how much extra is enough. This works very well. For instance, most flights to LHR carry about 25 minutes extra.
In this scenario a sudden runway closure or bomb thread on the tower is not catered for.
Nor should we cater for that, IMHO. Thing is, if you have to divert, TAKE THE DECISION. Don`t wait for all eternity in the stack untill there`s no alternative.
If your EAT is way past your limit, call it a day and carry the consequences of the fuelpolicy. Don`t let it become a safety issue.
Generally speaking, I take more than flightplan fuel in only 5 percent of the flights. I cannot recall the last time I actually needed it.
No, I`m not trying to brownnose myself behind a desk.
I have to say I agree with M.Mouse.
In my company we carry alternate fuel, final reserve fuel and an extra amount of fuel, depending on flight number, with minimum 15 minutes. This extra fuel is a statisctically found number. The company monitors all flights and per flightnumber it is then decided how much extra is enough. This works very well. For instance, most flights to LHR carry about 25 minutes extra.
In this scenario a sudden runway closure or bomb thread on the tower is not catered for.
Nor should we cater for that, IMHO. Thing is, if you have to divert, TAKE THE DECISION. Don`t wait for all eternity in the stack untill there`s no alternative.
If your EAT is way past your limit, call it a day and carry the consequences of the fuelpolicy. Don`t let it become a safety issue.
Generally speaking, I take more than flightplan fuel in only 5 percent of the flights. I cannot recall the last time I actually needed it.
No, I`m not trying to brownnose myself behind a desk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Caractacus
To elaborate. In the BNN hold LTN is nearer than LHR. In the OCK hold LGW is approx the same distance if not closer than LHR. In the BIG hold ditto. In the LAM hold STN is nearer than LHR.
Same situation exists in the LANAK hold on the way to GLA - GLA, EDI and Prestwick are about equidistant.
To elaborate. In the BNN hold LTN is nearer than LHR. In the OCK hold LGW is approx the same distance if not closer than LHR. In the BIG hold ditto. In the LAM hold STN is nearer than LHR.
Same situation exists in the LANAK hold on the way to GLA - GLA, EDI and Prestwick are about equidistant.