Virgin 'low fuel' MAYDAY
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cuillin
If it was such a non event then why did he declare a mayday and why is it subject to an AAIB report?
I'd love to know which outfit you fly for if they consider it sound commercial sense to divert to SNN or CWL to refuel on the basis that you might get 10 mins holding at LGW which might take you close to your reserves.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM
I do understand the pressures that you chaps operate under.
Could I just say that anybody who doesn't expect to get at least 10 minutes delay at either KK or LL during the early morning peak period is being rather optimistic.
Without wishing to judge: It seems to me that if one is told the delay will be 10 minutes and one doesn't have fuel for that, then it follows that if you continue to destination you know an emergency will have to be declared to get in legally. This suggests that whilst this crew may have acted completely within the law they showed little regard for their fellow aviators, who suffered as a result.
If my understanding of the facts is correct then whilst there may be a legal defence, there is no moral one - The day all captains behave like that there will literally be Carnage Matey!
.4
I do understand the pressures that you chaps operate under.
Could I just say that anybody who doesn't expect to get at least 10 minutes delay at either KK or LL during the early morning peak period is being rather optimistic.
Without wishing to judge: It seems to me that if one is told the delay will be 10 minutes and one doesn't have fuel for that, then it follows that if you continue to destination you know an emergency will have to be declared to get in legally. This suggests that whilst this crew may have acted completely within the law they showed little regard for their fellow aviators, who suffered as a result.
If my understanding of the facts is correct then whilst there may be a legal defence, there is no moral one - The day all captains behave like that there will literally be Carnage Matey!
.4
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One always should expect 20 minutes delay at LHR, the CAA tell us that. I regularly bump on a bit of extra fuel to ensure I have an appropriate amount of fuel to cover delays at the peak period and have landed with over 20T when the delays did not materialise. No embarassment felt or necessary. Those 'no delay' days do occur, so if events conspire to leave me with a little less fuel than I would prefer after crossing the pond and the weather is forecast CAVOK everywhere in the London TMA I am going to have to think very carefully before I divert on just the possibility that I may be delayed longer than I can accept. It would be a very short chat in the office if I lobbed into Cardiff, thus terminating the flight 100+ miles from destination, only to find that there was no actual delay into LHR or LGW!
The day when everybody carries little or no contingency fuel is not going to happen as the CAA will nail the practice, as they did with a certain Asian airline. However even the CAA recognise that a blanket 20 mins delay is rather a blunt tool for the operators who are based at LHR and permit the carriage of statistical contingency fuel, which is based on actual achieved fuel performance. Carrying 20 mins of holding fuel for an 05:00 arrival at LHR is a waste of time and money, which the stats reflect, but carrying 30 mins for the morning rush is prudent, which the stats also reflect. Arriving on fumes is an experience largely restricted to long haul aircraft when good weather prevails as they are the only ones subject to prolonged, sub-optimal performance. Short haulers simply aren't exposed to lower levels and speed restrictions long enough to get into that position. When bad weather prevails everyone sticks on a lot more fuel and it's a whole different ball game. I doubt many long haul crews would actually look upon this incident as an attempt to cheat the system. They are more likely to recognise it as the inevitable consequence of the system everybody uses.
The day when everybody carries little or no contingency fuel is not going to happen as the CAA will nail the practice, as they did with a certain Asian airline. However even the CAA recognise that a blanket 20 mins delay is rather a blunt tool for the operators who are based at LHR and permit the carriage of statistical contingency fuel, which is based on actual achieved fuel performance. Carrying 20 mins of holding fuel for an 05:00 arrival at LHR is a waste of time and money, which the stats reflect, but carrying 30 mins for the morning rush is prudent, which the stats also reflect. Arriving on fumes is an experience largely restricted to long haul aircraft when good weather prevails as they are the only ones subject to prolonged, sub-optimal performance. Short haulers simply aren't exposed to lower levels and speed restrictions long enough to get into that position. When bad weather prevails everyone sticks on a lot more fuel and it's a whole different ball game. I doubt many long haul crews would actually look upon this incident as an attempt to cheat the system. They are more likely to recognise it as the inevitable consequence of the system everybody uses.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM
You make some fair points.
I am guessing that if you are going to div to FF then your TOD will be about 250nm west of London? - about 35 minutes from KK? At this range the anticipated arrival delay is becoming quite reliable, although perhaps slightly less so at Gatwick than Heathrow because KK is a mixed-mode operation and one can never be certain what departure demand will materialise (but early in the morning there is sure to be some).
Nonetheless, at 35 minutes from WILLO you would presumably know without doubt what your fuel would be at WILLO? Does it not follow that if at this point you are told that the delay will be 10 minutes, you must know for certain whether you have it covered or not? If the answer to that question is "no", then it must further follow that 35 minutes before you get to WILLO you know you are going to have to jump the queue to get in with destination fuel on board? To press on at that point, on the basis that the delay may not materialise seems to me to be an unreasonable thing to do.
I have difficulty accepting that this crew didn't know they had less fuel than the reported delay at some considerable distance before WILLO. To me that suggests one thing - Divert. Unless, of course, you are permitted to burn your diversion fuel in the WILLO hold on the basis that a landing is assured? but at a single runway airport?
Is that logic correct?
.4
You make some fair points.
I am guessing that if you are going to div to FF then your TOD will be about 250nm west of London? - about 35 minutes from KK? At this range the anticipated arrival delay is becoming quite reliable, although perhaps slightly less so at Gatwick than Heathrow because KK is a mixed-mode operation and one can never be certain what departure demand will materialise (but early in the morning there is sure to be some).
Nonetheless, at 35 minutes from WILLO you would presumably know without doubt what your fuel would be at WILLO? Does it not follow that if at this point you are told that the delay will be 10 minutes, you must know for certain whether you have it covered or not? If the answer to that question is "no", then it must further follow that 35 minutes before you get to WILLO you know you are going to have to jump the queue to get in with destination fuel on board? To press on at that point, on the basis that the delay may not materialise seems to me to be an unreasonable thing to do.
I have difficulty accepting that this crew didn't know they had less fuel than the reported delay at some considerable distance before WILLO. To me that suggests one thing - Divert. Unless, of course, you are permitted to burn your diversion fuel in the WILLO hold on the basis that a landing is assured? but at a single runway airport?
Is that logic correct?
.4
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to the wonders of the modern FMC you will probably know your fuel at WILLO some 6 hours prior. The problem is you won't know the delay at LGW (or at LHR) until 20 mins prior to the holding fix at the earliest, which is some time after top of descent. It is rare to be passed holding information at any great distance from LHR for sure. Although the delay information may be well known and promulgated withing the ATC system, that info doesn't necessarily reach us in the cockpit in a timely fashion.
The problem with the FF diversion is that you will be starting your descent somewhere over Shannon. I've never heard delay information for London being passed that far west, so essentially you're taking a punt on initiating a diversion on a best guess as to holding delays. You are (in my airline at least) permitted to burn your diversion fuel at WILLO in order to absorb the holding delay subject to certain conditions. Bear in mind that there are few two runway airfields in the UK and the fuel policy must cover operations to single runway airfields. If you are at Edinburgh with reserves plus diversion fuel, told to expect 10 mins delay, then divert to Glasgow, arriving with just reserves, at which airport would you have been in the better fuel situation?
The problem with the FF diversion is that you will be starting your descent somewhere over Shannon. I've never heard delay information for London being passed that far west, so essentially you're taking a punt on initiating a diversion on a best guess as to holding delays. You are (in my airline at least) permitted to burn your diversion fuel at WILLO in order to absorb the holding delay subject to certain conditions. Bear in mind that there are few two runway airfields in the UK and the fuel policy must cover operations to single runway airfields. If you are at Edinburgh with reserves plus diversion fuel, told to expect 10 mins delay, then divert to Glasgow, arriving with just reserves, at which airport would you have been in the better fuel situation?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM
Okay, understood. This suggests we need to get the forecast delay information out earlier. During peak periods the EAT guy at Heathrow is working on the delays out to about 30 minutes in advance and this is normally stable (I accept not quite so at KK). In the pipeline for Mixed-mode is an arrival manager that should provide accurate information significantly further out than present. In the meantime we seem to be left in a position where this kind of occurrence will continue for as long as crews take an optimistic view on arrival delays.
At KK, where arrival delays are less stable, perhaps an early call to TC from OPs so that the EAT guy can be constantly monitoring the situation and report back when it becomes clear delay will exceed endurance. As I said in an earlier post, BA were often on to us when the Conc was just airborne out of Barbados saying it was going to be tight. During EATs we often ask traffic what their endurance is so that we know how close they are to a div; this enables us to tell them early if it looks like they aren't going to make it.
.4
Okay, understood. This suggests we need to get the forecast delay information out earlier. During peak periods the EAT guy at Heathrow is working on the delays out to about 30 minutes in advance and this is normally stable (I accept not quite so at KK). In the pipeline for Mixed-mode is an arrival manager that should provide accurate information significantly further out than present. In the meantime we seem to be left in a position where this kind of occurrence will continue for as long as crews take an optimistic view on arrival delays.
At KK, where arrival delays are less stable, perhaps an early call to TC from OPs so that the EAT guy can be constantly monitoring the situation and report back when it becomes clear delay will exceed endurance. As I said in an earlier post, BA were often on to us when the Conc was just airborne out of Barbados saying it was going to be tight. During EATs we often ask traffic what their endurance is so that we know how close they are to a div; this enables us to tell them early if it looks like they aren't going to make it.
.4
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Beautifully put Carnage, one of the best posts on here
your comment
Sums it up perfectly for me, sure, you can blast of to your diversion airfield and be PERFECTLY legal arriving with just a final reserve...however it is a far far better thing IMHO to have a bit of fuel in hand and commit to an airfield that is open and available.
This point seems to be lost on many here..as is the fact that we normally get the delay info about 2-3 minutes before the holding fix.
.4, how early would this delay info be passed on?
The best I've had was last year when there was a bit of fog about..we got the holding delay as we were inbound to BEXIL, which was about 10 minutes after TOD.
your comment
If you are at Edinburgh with reserves plus diversion fuel, told to expect 10 mins delay, then divert to Glasgow, arriving with just reserves, at which airport would you have been in the better fuel situation?
This point seems to be lost on many here..as is the fact that we normally get the delay info about 2-3 minutes before the holding fix.
At KK, where arrival delays are less stable, perhaps an early call to TC from OPs so that the EAT guy can be constantly monitoring the situation and report back when it becomes clear delay will exceed endurance.
The best I've had was last year when there was a bit of fog about..we got the holding delay as we were inbound to BEXIL, which was about 10 minutes after TOD.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This point seems to be lost on many here..
Personally in that situation I would reckon a PAN to LHR (with 2 runways) from the hold would have been the safest option just in case LGW (1 runway) became unusable. /Personally. A g/a on short finals and we would be looking at a different report. What VA management would have made of that I know not.
All this discussion of late has been about what to do when you get to the hold, when in fact the 'error' was made well before and the gamble only 'paid off' at the inconvenience of others.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- what is also 'lost' on many here is that the RECOMMENDATION is to arrive with 20 mnutes holding at LGW at that time of day. This crew did not have that...
15 years?
20?
Certainly a very long time, yet it is mainly British airlines who have these fuel problems...others abide by the rules, and stick to the plot.
It would appear that from some of the comments here, that many believe...'well, we work for a Brit airline, so we can get away with low fuel on arrival, the others be damned.'
That smokin' hole is getting ever closer.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This crew did not have that, and that would have been obvious to them for a long time.
Most of the time you get near enough to the levels that you want and as long as the forecast winds are reasonably accurate you will not have a problem. However, there are occasions when everything conspires against you and it will not be until fairly late into the flight that you will have a clear idea whether your fuel situation will be critical.
If the reported incident had been a regular occurrence, I could have understood the criticisms being bandied about by a few posters on here. However, considering that this was an isolated incident, I think that some of the comments based on 20/20 hindsight are a little off the mark.
By all means, the discussion surrounding the technicalities of calculating fuel loads based on historical data and ways of promulgating expected delays much earlier to the crews is good. It is not very appropriate to compare the differences between a short haul flight and a long haul flight when it comes to any of the numerous vagaries that can take their toll on fuel burn over 8 or more hours.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
any 'extra' fuel taken on in anticipation of the 20 minute holding at destination can easily be used up if you do not get the optimum levels or the winds are incorrectly forecast or you have to do a lot of unexpected vectoring around weather that wasn't forecast.
Anyway, as I said, whether they knew 1 hour, 2 hours or 5 hours before, they took a 'punt' at it and got it wrong - I'm sure they would agree? To end any flight on a Mayday due to insufficient fuel is not ideal.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
That smokin' hole is getting ever closer.
Multiple fuel priority maydays and even if all the current runways are available and take-offs cancelled there would be chaos. If the holes in the swiss cheese really started lining up and another incident say LGW runway blocked by a disabled aircraft then someone may not make it! I believe it takes at least 20 minutes to get LGW's emergency runway available.
So where are ATC going to send you - Biggin Hill, Farnborough, Dunsfold, Lasham, Bournemouth, Manston, Southend - Possible lack of Fire Cover at these airfields but you may be lucky and get it down OK.
The lack of runway capacity is a safety factor that should be addressed by the CAA and Government forthwith. In my view it's unsafe that LGW and STN have only one runway for the traffic they're taking and LHR should have at least three now!
I'm sure all the NIMBY noise protesters would prefer the extra runways to getting the out of fuel aircraft instead.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has been covered in the interveneing pages but there are a lot of them !
One reason for the arrival fuel being what it was is given as less than expected tail-winds... in my airline days factoring for tail-winds was always a moot point and our SOP's forbade it except for very high f'cast numbers... anyone know what the current practise is for Virgin.. or any other major ?
One reason for the arrival fuel being what it was is given as less than expected tail-winds... in my airline days factoring for tail-winds was always a moot point and our SOP's forbade it except for very high f'cast numbers... anyone know what the current practise is for Virgin.. or any other major ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The lack of runway capacity is a safety factor that should be addressed by the CAA and Government forthwith. In my view it's unsafe that LGW and STN have only one runway for the traffic they're taking and LHR should have at least three now!"
Absolutely spot on. The policy of "best use" of existing infrastructure is a major risk to safe air navigation and needs to be voiced as such by the industry.
BOAC is right too. Gambling on arrival delays is inappropriate here.
Another consideration is that every fuel PAN means 15nm of sterilised runway. This equates to 5 movements and brings everybody else's fuel calculations into doubt.
The LL EAT controller can see out to 250nm - so that's about 30 minutes. High level traffic can be seen before TOD. As soon as the system begins to track an aircraft it is put into the EAT queue in the order relevant to it's stack estimate. During peak periods we then manipulate that for optimum wake vortex. At that point it is clear what the delays are likely to be. Additionally, there are other tools that advise us of 'active demand' for each hour of the day so that even if we cannot say an hour in advance what the exact delay will be we will know how may are going to reach the stacks in that hour.
With this information available, no crew should be having to gamble.
.4
Absolutely spot on. The policy of "best use" of existing infrastructure is a major risk to safe air navigation and needs to be voiced as such by the industry.
BOAC is right too. Gambling on arrival delays is inappropriate here.
Another consideration is that every fuel PAN means 15nm of sterilised runway. This equates to 5 movements and brings everybody else's fuel calculations into doubt.
The LL EAT controller can see out to 250nm - so that's about 30 minutes. High level traffic can be seen before TOD. As soon as the system begins to track an aircraft it is put into the EAT queue in the order relevant to it's stack estimate. During peak periods we then manipulate that for optimum wake vortex. At that point it is clear what the delays are likely to be. Additionally, there are other tools that advise us of 'active demand' for each hour of the day so that even if we cannot say an hour in advance what the exact delay will be we will know how may are going to reach the stacks in that hour.
With this information available, no crew should be having to gamble.
.4
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on now BOAC, make your mind up. First you say:
Then you say:
Are you lobbying your Ops people to increase your 150kg contingency fuel? Or do you accept that it's very easy to eat up your contingency fuel (whatever that quantity is) just by being held for take off for a few minutes, or being held down for a few hours? Do you have much experience of 4 engine long haul ops?
so, you are saying, that in your experience, it is not unusual to eat all your contingency and start to use up the planned holding fuel? Time to take a little more, I feel, or maybe get Ops to review the airframe fuel burns? I know what I would do.
Incidentally, the 'short-haul/long-haul' bit is irrelevant - 5% is 5%, and it is very easy to use all your 150kg contingency on a 1 hour flight just by being held for take-off a few minutes, even without 'wrong levels', 'winds' or 'weather'
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM:
Q1 Who said I would take 150kg?
Q2 None, but I do not consider the number of engines relevant. Also this 'obsession' with 'hours' again - 5% is 5%
On nearly all my flights, including trans-Atalntic, I have RARELY used all my contingency. I have generally found that wrong winds/levels/routings etc all sort themselves out somewhere in the great 'averaging' scheme. A few have been 'nail-biters' as this one was.
Are you also saying that your '4 engine long-haul' regularly eats up all your contingency?
Q1 Who said I would take 150kg?
Q2 None, but I do not consider the number of engines relevant. Also this 'obsession' with 'hours' again - 5% is 5%
On nearly all my flights, including trans-Atalntic, I have RARELY used all my contingency. I have generally found that wrong winds/levels/routings etc all sort themselves out somewhere in the great 'averaging' scheme. A few have been 'nail-biters' as this one was.
Are you also saying that your '4 engine long-haul' regularly eats up all your contingency?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have watched this discussion for the last few days with interest and it is nice to see (generally) reasoned discussion after the 'flaming' I received a couple of days ago.
I am not going to go over some very well made points in previous posts (particularly ETOPS and 120.8) but as far as I can see this aircraft couldn't have taken any holding into LGW whether it was 2 minutes, 10 minutes or an hour.
The crew would have known this for some time and chose to continue onto destination and arrived at 1000' on finals for 26L (single runway airport) with less than destination arrival fuel. As has been mentioned before everything was on their side but they could easily have been faced with a go-around if the departure ahead had done a rejected take-off/landing aircraft had burst a tyre. They would then be on their way to LHR, in an aircraft burning fuel at a higher rate than a small oil-producing country could make it, expecting to arrive at LHR with less than Final Reserve Fuel.
As has been alluded to by Carnage Matey you would have to have balls of steel to get yourself into this situation at alternate. Further disruption to a hard-worked ATC system as well.
I am guessing there are probably 100+ flights a day coming off the Atlantic into the UK (the majority of which are for the London TMA) and the majority of which are as likely to have suffered the lack of tailwinds/weather avoidance as the Virgin crew had.
I totally agree with other comments in that if we all start putting out requests for priority approaches (with PAN calls) when we reach minimum destination fuel in a busy TMA there is going to be chaos.
If he had tried this in the New York TCA they would have pointed him at the nearest suitable airfield (which more than likely would not have been his destination).
And none of this has anything to do with 20/20 hindsight.
I am not going to go over some very well made points in previous posts (particularly ETOPS and 120.8) but as far as I can see this aircraft couldn't have taken any holding into LGW whether it was 2 minutes, 10 minutes or an hour.
The crew would have known this for some time and chose to continue onto destination and arrived at 1000' on finals for 26L (single runway airport) with less than destination arrival fuel. As has been mentioned before everything was on their side but they could easily have been faced with a go-around if the departure ahead had done a rejected take-off/landing aircraft had burst a tyre. They would then be on their way to LHR, in an aircraft burning fuel at a higher rate than a small oil-producing country could make it, expecting to arrive at LHR with less than Final Reserve Fuel.
As has been alluded to by Carnage Matey you would have to have balls of steel to get yourself into this situation at alternate. Further disruption to a hard-worked ATC system as well.
I am guessing there are probably 100+ flights a day coming off the Atlantic into the UK (the majority of which are for the London TMA) and the majority of which are as likely to have suffered the lack of tailwinds/weather avoidance as the Virgin crew had.
I totally agree with other comments in that if we all start putting out requests for priority approaches (with PAN calls) when we reach minimum destination fuel in a busy TMA there is going to be chaos.
If he had tried this in the New York TCA they would have pointed him at the nearest suitable airfield (which more than likely would not have been his destination).
And none of this has anything to do with 20/20 hindsight.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC - I am saying my 4-engined operation can easily eat up all it's contingency and more if the ground controllers at JFK or ORD are having a bad hair day. I know that your current employer flies to rather quiet little airfields on the other side of the pond, with minimal airfield delays. You also fly aircraft which cruise slower, so if you are trying to suggest that that experience is representative of trogging across the Atlantic from a busy airfield and held down low and slow then don't, because it isnt.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For most of the above posters, we are going over old ground again here... and most with the benfit of 20:20 hindsight and/or different company procedures.
However, the incident happened and the AAIB have investigated and made a conclusion. Their only "criticism", mild IMHO, was
So further / alternative criticisms are, I believe, unfounded and unwarranted unless the poster(s) are also willing to state that they consider the AAIB wrong
NoD
However, the incident happened and the AAIB have investigated and made a conclusion. Their only "criticism", mild IMHO, was
but a ‘Pan’ call, rather than a ‘Mayday’ would have been more appropriate.
NoD