Holding for EGCC
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes you cannot put on additional fuel. I flew a 727 from Miami to San Jose, Costa Rica one night and arrived at max landing weight. The airport was below minimums so held for two turns in holding and diverted to Panama City to refuel with dest. plus alt reserves. Guess what? We could only refuel to arrive again at SJO with two turns before we would have to divert again. Dispatch suggested adding fuel and burning it off in holding but what if the weather was ok on arrival and deteriorated waiting for the fuel burn off. We landed without holding so adding fuel would have complicated the flight. I think the crew did the right thing advising of their non critical but obvious fuel situation.
w
w
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago on a "Fam Flight". [LHR-MAN] we taxied out to be told "Sorry, it's one per 5 mins northbound, you are number3"
Capt replied "OK, can we park in block xx and shut down?"
This was on a 30? min sector....Can't hold on the ground....Can't hold in the air.....can't fly an alterative route...no fuel...BUT 800kgs extra will be uneconomic?
This happens quite often on the LHR-MAN route...the other one is "If I go around from this approach, I want direct Liverpool" 
watp, iktch
Capt replied "OK, can we park in block xx and shut down?"
This was on a 30? min sector....Can't hold on the ground....Can't hold in the air.....can't fly an alterative route...no fuel...BUT 800kgs extra will be uneconomic?
This happens quite often on the LHR-MAN route...the other one is "If I go around from this approach, I want direct Liverpool" watp, iktch
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does MAN not have 2 // runways? If you are restricted on one runway, a/c with burst tyre etc. you can land on the other. Thus you can use airmanship (= common sense) to decide how low you can let your fuel go to complete the mission of delivering your passengers where they want to go. That is what we are paid for. The weather and approach possibilities are part of the decision process. There is no need to panic when you reach reserve fuel. Make a calm decision.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical trip fuel on an LHR-MAN would be around 1800kgs, so taking an extra 800 kgs (or 44% more) would be uneconomical. Also being number 3 with 5 min delays northbound does not, in my experience, equate to a fifteen minute delay once you factor in all the other departures. Besides, are we not supposed to be reducing emissions in order to stop the greenies whinging?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAConnect (based on big BA policies) require a Pan call if you think you might land with less than final reserve fuel - and a Mayday if you will land with less than final reserve fuel.
We are also encouraged (though fortunately not actively enforced) to fly with minimum air plan fuel - meaning diversion is on the cards every time holding is required. Most skippers round up a bit (and then a bit more) to cater for this - but company policy is not to do this - they remain adamant that the odd diversion is cheaper than carrying fuel above minimum. As a short haul operator in the vagaries of European ATC and weather I struggle to understand that philosophy and tend to ignore it - but that is the company policy (and many abide). Policy believed to emanate from big BA (like most of what we now do in Bacon).
We are also encouraged (though fortunately not actively enforced) to fly with minimum air plan fuel - meaning diversion is on the cards every time holding is required. Most skippers round up a bit (and then a bit more) to cater for this - but company policy is not to do this - they remain adamant that the odd diversion is cheaper than carrying fuel above minimum. As a short haul operator in the vagaries of European ATC and weather I struggle to understand that philosophy and tend to ignore it - but that is the company policy (and many abide). Policy believed to emanate from big BA (like most of what we now do in Bacon).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did "company policy" carry the can for anything? The one pilot + dog cockpit is not yet with us, thank god. Captains are paid, and expected by the pax, to make common sense airmanship decisions. Company policy is a guide line not a law!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did "company policy" carry the can for anything?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: U.K
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's my understanding that Man ATC are not now issuing 'conditional crossing clearances' for 24R when operating departures on 24L. Up until last week it was common to be sitting on the gentle upslope at Golf or Foxtrot to be issued with the clearance " after the landing xxx, cleared cross runway 24R...". This ATC conditional clearance has now been withdrawn and crossing clearance will not be issued until the landing traffic has passed. Anybody who has crossed 24R at Golf or Delta will know that a fair amount of thrust is required to get rolling from stationary and this takes time.
This has subsequently had the knock on effect of increasing the time allocated to allow for crossing traffic and therefore the approach spacing for 24R during busy periods of up to 8 miles.
This is the reason for the increase inbound holding times at Dayne/Mirsi/Rosun and the situation is not likely to improve for the forseeable future. I,for one, will be carrying a little bit more fuel as a result!
This has subsequently had the knock on effect of increasing the time allocated to allow for crossing traffic and therefore the approach spacing for 24R during busy periods of up to 8 miles.
This is the reason for the increase inbound holding times at Dayne/Mirsi/Rosun and the situation is not likely to improve for the forseeable future. I,for one, will be carrying a little bit more fuel as a result!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was on a 30? min sector....Can't hold on the ground....Can't hold in the air.....can't fly an alterative route...no fuel...BUT 800kgs extra will be uneconomic?
Extra fuel or minimum fuel? It is an emotive and personal issue for most pilots. There is never an out an out definitive answer, no matter who you talk to! Allot of the time it depends how and the extent that you have been bit on the ar*e on both sides of the story that can influence a decision with this subject.
the other one is "If I go around from this approach, I want direct Liverpool
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binbombayandback, the instance which i intially raised was not caused by the new enforced abscence of conditional clearance and your view that it will be the cause of future holding at EGCC is rather naive and simplified. Some of your other comments i do agree with however.
My general concern is that there appears to be a mis-conception that A/C do not hold at EGCC. At best this seems to be speculative that the trip will progress like it does the other 9 times out of 10. My experience, and i'm sure those of you that fly the London TMA to EGCC route will agree, is that at certain times of the day you can almost always guarantee to hold at Dayne. By no means are we as constantly busy as KK and LL but with predictable regularity we do have to hold several times per day. This is not rocket science and a quick look at the peak flow levels would probably help in the fueling decision. Is this info available to the pilot along with the usual other salient stuff?
RP45
My general concern is that there appears to be a mis-conception that A/C do not hold at EGCC. At best this seems to be speculative that the trip will progress like it does the other 9 times out of 10. My experience, and i'm sure those of you that fly the London TMA to EGCC route will agree, is that at certain times of the day you can almost always guarantee to hold at Dayne. By no means are we as constantly busy as KK and LL but with predictable regularity we do have to hold several times per day. This is not rocket science and a quick look at the peak flow levels would probably help in the fueling decision. Is this info available to the pilot along with the usual other salient stuff?
RP45
From Rat5
Does MAN not have 2 // runways? If you are restricted on one runway, a/c with burst tyre etc. you can land on the other.
Not as simple as that I'm afraid. When both runways are operating ground in their usual mode (TO to 24L and land 06R) there are no problems, however reverse that and there are. Ground movement limitations will severely reduce airport capacity, there is no parallel taxiway for the southerly runway so backtracking is called for following landing 24L and before TO 06L . When single runway is in use it requires a minimum of 10 minutes to reposition firemen to cover the southerly runway.
Time is fuel.
Does MAN not have 2 // runways? If you are restricted on one runway, a/c with burst tyre etc. you can land on the other.
Not as simple as that I'm afraid. When both runways are operating ground in their usual mode (TO to 24L and land 06R) there are no problems, however reverse that and there are. Ground movement limitations will severely reduce airport capacity, there is no parallel taxiway for the southerly runway so backtracking is called for following landing 24L and before TO 06L . When single runway is in use it requires a minimum of 10 minutes to reposition firemen to cover the southerly runway.
Time is fuel.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always understood the UK AIP reckons 20 mins holding fuel must be carried to account for the "No Delay Expected" rule which can mean up to 20 mins delay.
Sensible.
Sensible.
Coningency fuel:
The higher of (1) or (2);
1) 5% of planned trip fuel or in the event of in-flight re-planning 5% of trip fuel for remainder of flight
or (provided that an en-route alternate is available)
3% of planned trip fuel or in the event of in-flight re-planning 3% of trip fuel for remainder of flight
or (if the operator has a fuel monitoring policy)
20 minutes flying time, based on the trip fuel fuel planned consumption
or (if the operator has a fuel monitoring and statistical analysis of fuel records)
An amount determined by statistical records
2) 5 minutes at holding speed.
It is the highest between 1 and 2 not the highest of 1.
So most large operators will have statistical analysis of fuel on routes therfore can apply them from part (1). The useual minimum would be either 3% or 5% though.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding fuel...... What???
On my last trip we carried 10 mins contingency fuel. Fortunately the tailwinds were a bit stronger than advertised and we arrived with a little more.
Anyway,
Back to BA fuel policy:
TRIP (A TO B)
STAT. CONTINGENCY
DIVERSION (B TO C)
RESERVES (30 MINS HOLDING AT 1500' AGL AT C)
TAXI
TOTAL
Notice that we do not load any holding fuel specifically allocated for holding at our destination (B)! Any extra added at the pilots discretion after this equation must be justified. BA accept the pilots judgement, if he/she notice a deterioation in wx or traffic flow and chooses to load extra fuel. The bottom line is we carry what I have quoted above unless we have a solid justification for loading extra (and too much extra makes your position on the league table look bad!!).
No specific holding fuel apart from the final reserve (i.e. Mayday call level) is carried and this is something that is often missunderstood by onlookers. In other words we do not stick on holding fuel!!
I'll leave you to get yer head round that.
Anyway,
Back to BA fuel policy:
TRIP (A TO B)
STAT. CONTINGENCY
DIVERSION (B TO C)
RESERVES (30 MINS HOLDING AT 1500' AGL AT C)
TAXI
TOTAL
Notice that we do not load any holding fuel specifically allocated for holding at our destination (B)! Any extra added at the pilots discretion after this equation must be justified. BA accept the pilots judgement, if he/she notice a deterioation in wx or traffic flow and chooses to load extra fuel. The bottom line is we carry what I have quoted above unless we have a solid justification for loading extra (and too much extra makes your position on the league table look bad!!).
No specific holding fuel apart from the final reserve (i.e. Mayday call level) is carried and this is something that is often missunderstood by onlookers. In other words we do not stick on holding fuel!!
I'll leave you to get yer head round that.
Last edited by JackOffallTrades; 27th Oct 2006 at 22:36. Reason: Readability
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The novel concept of ‘committing’ and the embellished definition of contingency fuel as some kind of extravagance that ‘may be used any time after engine start' are purely internal BA creations. The law of the land differs, (JAR-OPS, UK AIP, ibid) and this might explain why stories of planes approaching the limit of endurance within five minutes of pitching up on the frequency often feature Big Airways’ planes.
I don't think many of us have difficultly in grasping the intent that contingency fuel is not to figure in your planning. It is your last line of defence if you have become a victim of circumstances beyond your control. In the countless times this debate has surfaced in these annals, it seems that BA regard a successful arrival at the planned destination as some kind of statistical likelihood! The sector London-Manchester is virtually ballistic in nature, and so the additional fuel burned is negligible, there being no appreciable cruise phase to incur a penalty. So what's the point in short loading?
You are still required to carry sufficient fuel for the flight though, I held for 12minutes the other day inbound to MAN first thing in the morning in perfectly operable weather. You might put 24L and 24R down as two separate runways, but a request for landing 24L might not be met with the usual affable northern welcome you might expect.
I know cousin Nigel gets very twitched about fuel policy, so whatever. You do what you feel. I rather suspect you’ll still find yourselves the first to start running out of fuel though.
I don't think many of us have difficultly in grasping the intent that contingency fuel is not to figure in your planning. It is your last line of defence if you have become a victim of circumstances beyond your control. In the countless times this debate has surfaced in these annals, it seems that BA regard a successful arrival at the planned destination as some kind of statistical likelihood! The sector London-Manchester is virtually ballistic in nature, and so the additional fuel burned is negligible, there being no appreciable cruise phase to incur a penalty. So what's the point in short loading?
You are still required to carry sufficient fuel for the flight though, I held for 12minutes the other day inbound to MAN first thing in the morning in perfectly operable weather. You might put 24L and 24R down as two separate runways, but a request for landing 24L might not be met with the usual affable northern welcome you might expect.
I know cousin Nigel gets very twitched about fuel policy, so whatever. You do what you feel. I rather suspect you’ll still find yourselves the first to start running out of fuel though.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies / Gentlemen,
This thread, in my opinion, addresses the most serious safety issue currently affecting MAN. I do not proclaim myself an expert in aircraft fuel calculations - far from it - but I know more than a little about Manchester Airport and I invite you all to consider the following.
To those of you based at or regularly operating into LHR, it must be tempting to view MAN as something of a quiet backwater. Please be careful. MAN is currently the 12th busiest airport in Europe and remains in the World top 50 according to ACI statistics. This Summer, MAN routinely handled upto 800 movements on weekdays with slightly fewer at weekends. These flights are not evenly spread throughout the day. There are traffic peaks between 0700-1000; 1600-2000 and often 1330-1500. The 1330-1500 one happens on Summer Saturdays too ... be prepared! Holding is very common at these times. Expect it. As you may be aware, the 1330-1500 build-up is partly due to the single-runway ops which occur daily, so this may be dissipated if MAplc eventually go dual from dawn to dusk.
But bear in mind that other times can be busy too. Ask yourself whether Manchester United have a European home match. Check whether Arsenal or Chelsea are in town (or have your ops be aware of match days). Another A320 from a 'Big Airline' had this same issue when Man Utd played Celtic afew weeks ago (loads of bizjets pitch up from Ireland; Liverpool FC matches in Manchester have the same effect). And football matches are not the only potential pitfall - remember occasions when an emergency is declared and other aircraft are required to hold until it is over.
The key thing to remember at MAN is that YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PLANE IN THE SKY !!! What if others have run their fuel to a minimum level - especially if they belong to the same company and use the same criteria? If an incident occurs making the landing runway unavailable, are you sure that YOU will be the only one declaring a fuel shortage? What if FOUR other aircraft hear the same message and immediately declare as well? In that case, one of you gets to be number five at MAN or the closest alternate, or you can divert to somewhere more distant. Perhaps this sounds far fetched to you - it wouldn't happen? Well think again! Especially if four of the five are from the same company using the same criteria for their short sector planning.
Manchester is busy. Sometimes unexpected occurences will cause a delay, even on CAVOK days. Lots of other aircraft will be in the system with their own fuel figures to consider. So please allow that little bit extra fuel if in doubt. When the unexpected happens, it's not just one aeroplane which needs to divert in a hurry. Someone has to be last in the queue.
All the best. Keep it safe. Think of your company's reputation if this goes wrong just once.
This thread, in my opinion, addresses the most serious safety issue currently affecting MAN. I do not proclaim myself an expert in aircraft fuel calculations - far from it - but I know more than a little about Manchester Airport and I invite you all to consider the following.
To those of you based at or regularly operating into LHR, it must be tempting to view MAN as something of a quiet backwater. Please be careful. MAN is currently the 12th busiest airport in Europe and remains in the World top 50 according to ACI statistics. This Summer, MAN routinely handled upto 800 movements on weekdays with slightly fewer at weekends. These flights are not evenly spread throughout the day. There are traffic peaks between 0700-1000; 1600-2000 and often 1330-1500. The 1330-1500 one happens on Summer Saturdays too ... be prepared! Holding is very common at these times. Expect it. As you may be aware, the 1330-1500 build-up is partly due to the single-runway ops which occur daily, so this may be dissipated if MAplc eventually go dual from dawn to dusk.
But bear in mind that other times can be busy too. Ask yourself whether Manchester United have a European home match. Check whether Arsenal or Chelsea are in town (or have your ops be aware of match days). Another A320 from a 'Big Airline' had this same issue when Man Utd played Celtic afew weeks ago (loads of bizjets pitch up from Ireland; Liverpool FC matches in Manchester have the same effect). And football matches are not the only potential pitfall - remember occasions when an emergency is declared and other aircraft are required to hold until it is over.
The key thing to remember at MAN is that YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PLANE IN THE SKY !!! What if others have run their fuel to a minimum level - especially if they belong to the same company and use the same criteria? If an incident occurs making the landing runway unavailable, are you sure that YOU will be the only one declaring a fuel shortage? What if FOUR other aircraft hear the same message and immediately declare as well? In that case, one of you gets to be number five at MAN or the closest alternate, or you can divert to somewhere more distant. Perhaps this sounds far fetched to you - it wouldn't happen? Well think again! Especially if four of the five are from the same company using the same criteria for their short sector planning.
Manchester is busy. Sometimes unexpected occurences will cause a delay, even on CAVOK days. Lots of other aircraft will be in the system with their own fuel figures to consider. So please allow that little bit extra fuel if in doubt. When the unexpected happens, it's not just one aeroplane which needs to divert in a hurry. Someone has to be last in the queue.
All the best. Keep it safe. Think of your company's reputation if this goes wrong just once.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite agree - unfortunately many Captains are so subservient they obey "company policy", even to the extent of some expecting higher positions (eg TRE) as a result (not sure they achieve it though!). The BA way seems to want robotic clones than people who actually make decisions for themselves. Airmanship is dead?
I carry extra fuel at the slightest excuse, and have never, ever had any comeback.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be mis-interpreting alibaba but it seems that 'he' is confusing 'contingency' fuel with holding fuel?
It is the CAA's stated requirement for AOC holders that 'expected holding fuel' be included in TRIP fuel, and will be therefore separate from contingency, and should be shown on the PLOG as TRIP fuel. This applies to BA as much as any other UK operator.
It is the CAA's stated requirement for AOC holders that 'expected holding fuel' be included in TRIP fuel, and will be therefore separate from contingency, and should be shown on the PLOG as TRIP fuel. This applies to BA as much as any other UK operator.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post Shed. 
I can quite agree with everything you said. Just to add that the amount of airspace that MAN controls is quite considerable and also affects flows from en-route to the different TMA's of LBA, LPL, EMA and BLK and a few more other airports which MAN is usually involved with.
BOAC holding fuel should be part of Trip if holding is part of a procedural type procedure and if holding is expected which you are quite right to say as defined under JAR OPS 1.255.
If it is not expected though, it will not be included. The type of ATC delays that you are referring to will be covered therefore, under statistical analysis of fuel useage data and will be included in the Trip fuel.
Contingency is Contingency and is quite different as previously explained based on the criteria as defined under JAR OPS 1.255 and AMC OPS 1.255 and IEM OPS 1.255(c)(3)(i) Which is what I have been trying to refer to in my previous post. I had been only trying to refer to the criteria for defining Contingency fuel and nothing else to do with holding.
Trip should include holding though which you are quite right to say, if it is expected. It is based generally on statistical analysis of flights and if holding is not expected it will not be included.
This is from JAR OPS 1.255
(b) An operator shall ensure that the planning
of flights is [at least based upon (1) and (2) below:]
(1) Procedures [contained in the
Operations Manual] and data [ ] [derived from:
[(i) Data provided by the aeroplane
manufacturer;] or
[(ii)] Current aeroplane specific data
[derived from a fuel consumption
monitoring system.]
(2) The operating conditions under which
the flight is to be conducted including:
(i) Realistic aeroplane fuel
consumption data;
(ii) Anticipated masses;
(iii) Expected meteorological
conditions; and
(iv) Air Traffic Services procedures
and restrictions.
I hope it clears it up to what I had been meaning.
In the end if you want to put Extra fuel on a flight you do it. There should be sensible based reasons to add the fuel or not to take extra fuel. Flying around on every flight on minimum fuel to save the company money is just daft. But then again so is loading an extra tonne or so for the wife and kids on every single flight.
Common sense is the key to all of these types of decision that we make many times a day. Unfortunately it is a dieing art and is not just prevalent to aviation but in all walks of life.
Quite agree with you chiglet. A bit of a scary statment. Talk about backing yourself into a corner.
I can quite agree with everything you said. Just to add that the amount of airspace that MAN controls is quite considerable and also affects flows from en-route to the different TMA's of LBA, LPL, EMA and BLK and a few more other airports which MAN is usually involved with.BOAC holding fuel should be part of Trip if holding is part of a procedural type procedure and if holding is expected which you are quite right to say as defined under JAR OPS 1.255.
If it is not expected though, it will not be included. The type of ATC delays that you are referring to will be covered therefore, under statistical analysis of fuel useage data and will be included in the Trip fuel.
Contingency is Contingency and is quite different as previously explained based on the criteria as defined under JAR OPS 1.255 and AMC OPS 1.255 and IEM OPS 1.255(c)(3)(i) Which is what I have been trying to refer to in my previous post. I had been only trying to refer to the criteria for defining Contingency fuel and nothing else to do with holding.
Trip should include holding though which you are quite right to say, if it is expected. It is based generally on statistical analysis of flights and if holding is not expected it will not be included.
This is from JAR OPS 1.255
(b) An operator shall ensure that the planning
of flights is [at least based upon (1) and (2) below:]
(1) Procedures [contained in the
Operations Manual] and data [ ] [derived from:
[(i) Data provided by the aeroplane
manufacturer;] or
[(ii)] Current aeroplane specific data
[derived from a fuel consumption
monitoring system.]
(2) The operating conditions under which
the flight is to be conducted including:
(i) Realistic aeroplane fuel
consumption data;
(ii) Anticipated masses;
(iii) Expected meteorological
conditions; and
(iv) Air Traffic Services procedures
and restrictions.
I hope it clears it up to what I had been meaning.
In the end if you want to put Extra fuel on a flight you do it. There should be sensible based reasons to add the fuel or not to take extra fuel. Flying around on every flight on minimum fuel to save the company money is just daft. But then again so is loading an extra tonne or so for the wife and kids on every single flight.
Common sense is the key to all of these types of decision that we make many times a day. Unfortunately it is a dieing art and is not just prevalent to aviation but in all walks of life.
it is a "based" airline that has stated "In the event of a g/a, we WILL be going to EGGP".....