Virgin 'low fuel' MAYDAY
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no point in a willy-waving competition here, CM, as Professional Pilots are not particularly impressed by that, and in any case it is obvious yours is bigger and better than mine. The size of your thing or what you do with it makes NO difference to the way fuel should be planned. Matey in his C152 who burns more than he 'needs' is in just as difficult a position as CM in his important big jet, and even me, going to the little sleepy backwater with minimal delays, can and have been held down and slow, (and delayed for departure).
If this 'using all the contingency' is anything like a regular occurrence, we have to hope that you (and your colleagues) are taking extra, or is this the root of the problem? Do I hear some bells ringing in the background....................?
NOD - the AAIB have no remit as far as I know other than 'safety' and there was no 'danger' here as I have said. Most of the 'old ground' here revolves around commercial issues and the effect on other operators. AFAIK no-one is questioning the AAIB report?
If this 'using all the contingency' is anything like a regular occurrence, we have to hope that you (and your colleagues) are taking extra, or is this the root of the problem? Do I hear some bells ringing in the background....................?
NOD - the AAIB have no remit as far as I know other than 'safety' and there was no 'danger' here as I have said. Most of the 'old ground' here revolves around commercial issues and the effect on other operators. AFAIK no-one is questioning the AAIB report?
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage_Matey,
Arrogance is so unbecoming...
I haven't a clue who BOAC is (and notwithstanding the fact you may be best of buddies....) but I'd be surprised if he doesn't make a darn site more fuel decisions than your good self being a short/medium haul pilot, perhaps?
Which means the potential to get it wrong far exceeds the potential of you getting it wrong in your big shiny four-engined monster!
How many sectors do you do a year? 50? 60? 100?
How about 5-600/year for your numerous short-haul colleagues who negotiate the same congested European airfields...
Maybe if you read this thread JFK wouldn't catch you out so often?
However, question for BOAC....
Back in Post #5 you state (discussion about landing with "E" only):
Our OM allow us to burn into our "D" fuel and commit to the destination airfield if three conditions are satisfied, one of which is an EAT.
You suggest this is not standard practise in the UK and is not Virgin SOP?
Is that true?
Comments anyone?
Arrogance is so unbecoming...
I haven't a clue who BOAC is (and notwithstanding the fact you may be best of buddies....) but I'd be surprised if he doesn't make a darn site more fuel decisions than your good self being a short/medium haul pilot, perhaps?
Which means the potential to get it wrong far exceeds the potential of you getting it wrong in your big shiny four-engined monster!
How many sectors do you do a year? 50? 60? 100?
How about 5-600/year for your numerous short-haul colleagues who negotiate the same congested European airfields...
Maybe if you read this thread JFK wouldn't catch you out so often?
However, question for BOAC....
Back in Post #5 you state (discussion about landing with "E" only):
Edit for Blackmail - Case 2 is not normal procedure in the UK. Telling ATC you are committed to LGW will do nothing (in theory). There is a chance the runway can be blocked by an evacuation or tyre burst. Case 3 is not applicable in the UK - in both cases, in the UK, it is Pan or Mayday or just get on with it.
You suggest this is not standard practise in the UK and is not Virgin SOP?
Is that true?
Comments anyone?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOD
I understand and agree with what you are saying - that the only valid criticism on legal grounds is the PAN/MAYDAY issue.
Gently I say it, I don't think that is actually the point here. I believe the point is that whilst this may have been legal, it is not an acceptable course of action because it deliberately (i.e. out of choice) uses the system to save the individual having to make a decision he would rather not make. The government have taken a similar view on runway capacity and these "abuses" of the system are not in anybody's interest. I have no desire to criticise the crew, however I think their decision to continue to Gatwick was an error.
.4
I understand and agree with what you are saying - that the only valid criticism on legal grounds is the PAN/MAYDAY issue.
Gently I say it, I don't think that is actually the point here. I believe the point is that whilst this may have been legal, it is not an acceptable course of action because it deliberately (i.e. out of choice) uses the system to save the individual having to make a decision he would rather not make. The government have taken a similar view on runway capacity and these "abuses" of the system are not in anybody's interest. I have no desire to criticise the crew, however I think their decision to continue to Gatwick was an error.
.4
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no desire to criticise the crew, however I think their decision to continue to Gatwick was an error.
Perhaps these folks would rather stick their collective heads firmly in the sand, and just say...'what, me worry?'
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SR - yes, that was also BA's 'approved procedure' when I left in 2004 - using LHR as a second runway for LGW and allowing crews to burn down to land with 'E' ('final reserve') fuel as long as:
Wx ok
EAT known
No plausible failures of ground equipment which might preclude a landing at LGW.
Inumerable bright young cadet 'CEO of the future' co-pilots tried to persuade me to do this as I started to mumble into my beard about diverting, until I made them look at the arrival fuel at LHR if you then went round at 3 miles with a blocked runway at LGW, when they went quiet - it was just about enough to cover the fuel pumps. It was indeed item 3 that bothered me at LGW, and I never got an answer from the 'dreamer's in BA as to whether they considered a runway to be necessary ground equipment. The point of my 'Edit' was to point out that telling LGW ATC that you are 'committed' meant nothing OFFICIALLY to them (and that when they found out what it meant they might think you should be
). The runway did not become 'yours' and life went on as normal from the time you 'committed' to the time you landed.
EDIT: To add - I'm not aware of VA's policy on this. You never know, the crew could have been planning on LHR, to be told by OPS there was no way due to manpower or whatever, and it has not been unknown for a crew (NB not VA before I am leapt on!) to do this to highlight an issue.
Wx ok
EAT known
No plausible failures of ground equipment which might preclude a landing at LGW.
Inumerable bright young cadet 'CEO of the future' co-pilots tried to persuade me to do this as I started to mumble into my beard about diverting, until I made them look at the arrival fuel at LHR if you then went round at 3 miles with a blocked runway at LGW, when they went quiet - it was just about enough to cover the fuel pumps. It was indeed item 3 that bothered me at LGW, and I never got an answer from the 'dreamer's in BA as to whether they considered a runway to be necessary ground equipment
. The point of my 'Edit' was to point out that telling LGW ATC that you are 'committed' meant nothing OFFICIALLY to them (and that when they found out what it meant they might think you should be). The runway did not become 'yours' and life went on as normal from the time you 'committed' to the time you landed.EDIT: To add - I'm not aware of VA's policy on this. You never know, the crew could have been planning on LHR, to be told by OPS there was no way due to manpower or whatever, and it has not been unknown for a crew (NB not VA before I am leapt on!) to do this to highlight an issue.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree....having said that, I agree entirely with the AAIB in the sense that a "PAN" call would have been more appropriate.
Personally would be happier committing to LGW, rather than heading off to LHR, for the reasons I previously highlighted, and I am of the opinion that it is the safer and more prudent option.
My own plan in an instance similar to this (after discussing this very issue with a few guys at west drayton) is to make ATC aware that at time XXXX a fuel PAN will be declared...not strictly Ops manual, but IMHO gives a heads up to the relevant ATC.
Personally would be happier committing to LGW, rather than heading off to LHR, for the reasons I previously highlighted, and I am of the opinion that it is the safer and more prudent option.
My own plan in an instance similar to this (after discussing this very issue with a few guys at west drayton) is to make ATC aware that at time XXXX a fuel PAN will be declared...not strictly Ops manual, but IMHO gives a heads up to the relevant ATC.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
No criticism intended here and I, of course, agree that javelin's approach to the problem is a demonstration of how fantastic common-sense can be!
The scenario you share with your FO's supposes you've burnt all your D and on finals, your day gets even worse and you're left with the proposition of diverting on E, correct?
The way I look at it, is, once you're into burning D and commiting yourself to a destination airfield, I think you're in non-normal territory. A PAN at this point might be prudent.
Normally, in the neck-of-the-woods where I fly and on my type, D < E. I could still make my normal alternate if that happened to me and have some flex...er, vapour left in the tanks.
I hasten to say that I'd be mighty upset if that happened to me, to say the least.
In the above scenario, for your aircraft type, D was only just less than E, correct?
If D is greater than E, and you've burned all your D, you're going to have to think extremely quickly and find another strip of tarmac somewhere, which may or may not exist....
Cognizant of the relative sizes of D and E (the following won't apply if E is greater than D, obviously - see above), it strikes me that if you're staring the "Should I commit or divert?" proposition in the face, what you need to know is where your EAT is in relation to the point at which your fuel onboard (FOB) is equal to D.
Having made the decision to commit, if you get an EAT which means that, if you commit further, your remaining fuel onboard is going to be less than D (+ whatever "pucker factor fuel" you in particular can handle, call it = D_adjusted), it is at the point that it is equal to D_adjusted you've got a SECOND decision to make...
You've got three options (at least) as I see it...
You're either absolutely ice-cool, and the possibility of the blocked runway scenario you suppose doesn't bother you, so you're willing to commit anyway and accept the given EAT. The PAN is still active but no MAYDAY? Fair play to you. Professional pilots tend not to like options which leave them no escape bar a PFL in Biggin Hill!
You reach D_adjusted (because you're allowed to and you hope your EAT might come forward - not unusual), bottle it, decide to divert, and somewhere along the line, when FOB = E, declare a MAYDAY. Personally, knowing that at some time during my diversion I'm going to reach this point, you might as well declare it at the point you make the decision.
You reach D_adjusted (because you're allowed to and you hope your EAT might come forward - not unusual), bottle it, decide to declare a MAYDAY, in order to accelerate your progress to the destination airfield, although, in this case, you'll probably land with more than E, whereupon strictly, a MAYDAY is not required....well not according to our OM. However, you'll only get the expedited arrival if you DO declare the MAYDAY.
I think that is right anyway....
Makes you think there is more to fuel planning than meets the eye.
I agree that what the regulations permit could potentially lead you down a cul-de-sac, whereupon, the above is a last attempt to ensure you still have more than one option.
No criticism intended here and I, of course, agree that javelin's approach to the problem is a demonstration of how fantastic common-sense can be!
The scenario you share with your FO's supposes you've burnt all your D and on finals, your day gets even worse and you're left with the proposition of diverting on E, correct?
The way I look at it, is, once you're into burning D and commiting yourself to a destination airfield, I think you're in non-normal territory. A PAN at this point might be prudent.
Normally, in the neck-of-the-woods where I fly and on my type, D < E. I could still make my normal alternate if that happened to me and have some flex...er, vapour left in the tanks.
I hasten to say that I'd be mighty upset if that happened to me, to say the least.
In the above scenario, for your aircraft type, D was only just less than E, correct?
If D is greater than E, and you've burned all your D, you're going to have to think extremely quickly and find another strip of tarmac somewhere, which may or may not exist....
Cognizant of the relative sizes of D and E (the following won't apply if E is greater than D, obviously - see above), it strikes me that if you're staring the "Should I commit or divert?" proposition in the face, what you need to know is where your EAT is in relation to the point at which your fuel onboard (FOB) is equal to D.
Having made the decision to commit, if you get an EAT which means that, if you commit further, your remaining fuel onboard is going to be less than D (+ whatever "pucker factor fuel" you in particular can handle, call it = D_adjusted), it is at the point that it is equal to D_adjusted you've got a SECOND decision to make...
You've got three options (at least) as I see it...
You're either absolutely ice-cool, and the possibility of the blocked runway scenario you suppose doesn't bother you, so you're willing to commit anyway and accept the given EAT. The PAN is still active but no MAYDAY? Fair play to you. Professional pilots tend not to like options which leave them no escape bar a PFL in Biggin Hill!
You reach D_adjusted (because you're allowed to and you hope your EAT might come forward - not unusual), bottle it, decide to divert, and somewhere along the line, when FOB = E, declare a MAYDAY. Personally, knowing that at some time during my diversion I'm going to reach this point, you might as well declare it at the point you make the decision.
You reach D_adjusted (because you're allowed to and you hope your EAT might come forward - not unusual), bottle it, decide to declare a MAYDAY, in order to accelerate your progress to the destination airfield, although, in this case, you'll probably land with more than E, whereupon strictly, a MAYDAY is not required....well not according to our OM. However, you'll only get the expedited arrival if you DO declare the MAYDAY.
I think that is right anyway....
Makes you think there is more to fuel planning than meets the eye.
I agree that what the regulations permit could potentially lead you down a cul-de-sac, whereupon, the above is a last attempt to ensure you still have more than one option.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H1 - in my opinion that is the ONLY sensible way to skin that particular moggie. As soon as you can see you will be arriving at the hold with 'insufficient' fuel, (and you should get a fair bit of notice), a good Ops cell in your company will be able to look at/talk to ATC and hopefully 'smooth your passage' without noticeable effect on others. I've seen it done many times with tricks like directs/stack swaps and others. ATC have always been brilliant. At least everyone knows in sufficient time rather than a 'shock and awe' tactic.
SR - I'm beginning to loose you there
. I am assuming 'D' is 'div fuel' and 'E' is 'final reserve' in my language? Some typical PLOG figures for a 737-400 with LHR as alt for LGW would be
'D' 9-1000 kg
'E' 1300-1400kg
..so g/a at LGw with 1400kg and burn 1000 on the way - don't tell the residents around LHR what is coming over their heads shortly!
BA procedures (then, anyway) required NO call to ATC of any sort to carry this out. Somewhere in the annals of PPRune was a thread by 'Antigua', I think, who did notify ATC of his inability to go-round having committed and the result was interesting.
SR - I'm beginning to loose you there
. I am assuming 'D' is 'div fuel' and 'E' is 'final reserve' in my language? Some typical PLOG figures for a 737-400 with LHR as alt for LGW would be'D' 9-1000 kg
'E' 1300-1400kg
..so g/a at LGw with 1400kg and burn 1000 on the way
- don't tell the residents around LHR what is coming over their heads shortly!BA procedures (then, anyway) required NO call to ATC of any sort to carry this out. Somewhere in the annals of PPRune was a thread by 'Antigua', I think, who did notify ATC of his inability to go-round having committed and the result was interesting.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
D = Alternate fuel and E = Final Reserve...thats correct.
Your situation at LGW with LHR as the alternate is E > D, so the option of accepting an EAT into LGW which means you burn all your D will still allow you (theoretically or otherwise!) to reach LHR.
Thats a good position to be in....relatively.
However, if D > E, once you've "committed" to LGW, what I am saying is you need to watch what the FOB does as it burns down from D + E to D (not E, although thats what you're allowed to do legally!), because at that point you need to make another, potentially even more important decision, about whether you are going to continue to commit to LGW or go to LHR.
This is the important point in time....even more important than your actual EAT isn't it?
Because at this point in time, if you commit further, you've got only one option.
D = Alternate fuel and E = Final Reserve...thats correct.
Your situation at LGW with LHR as the alternate is E > D, so the option of accepting an EAT into LGW which means you burn all your D will still allow you (theoretically or otherwise!) to reach LHR.
Thats a good position to be in....relatively.
However, if D > E, once you've "committed" to LGW, what I am saying is you need to watch what the FOB does as it burns down from D + E to D (not E, although thats what you're allowed to do legally!), because at that point you need to make another, potentially even more important decision, about whether you are going to continue to commit to LGW or go to LHR.
This is the important point in time....even more important than your actual EAT isn't it?
Because at this point in time, if you commit further, you've got only one option.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..so g/a at LGW with 1400kg and burn 1000 on the way - don't tell the residents around LHR what is coming over their heads shortly!
Not a good position to be in but allowed by FCO's.
Edited to add that some airlines do not carry 5% contingency, but a statistical contingency (normally enough fuel so that div + final reserve fuel will not be eaten into on 99% of the flights on that route) which may well be more than 5% for JFK to LHR. So to say 5% is 5% is are not (always) strictly correct.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is my understanding, I'm ready to be corrected.I did say it was not a good position to be in and most Captains are not happy with commiting to one runway. I am based in LHR so when commiting is discussed "we have 2 runways to use" is phrase used every time.
I have only commited for real once. On a gin clear day so flight planned fuel had been taken. If there is a hint of bad weather (or any other excuse)everyone takes a load of extra fuel. I wouldn't mind betting more palpatations due fuel happen on fair weather days than on bad wx days.
I have only commited for real once. On a gin clear day so flight planned fuel had been taken. If there is a hint of bad weather (or any other excuse)everyone takes a load of extra fuel. I wouldn't mind betting more palpatations due fuel happen on fair weather days than on bad wx days.
Nice to see the reference to "Alternate Holding Fuel" has been dropped: I know JAR OPS has only been in place 8 years or so!
