Holding for EGCC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding for EGCC
Hi wanted to get a pilot perspective on arrivals to Dayne.
Shuttle pilot informed ATC that He could only hold twice around before having to Div and this was whilst EGGP was still closed Yesterday (24th). Was unwilling to declare an emergency but if approach hadn't tweaked their arrival order then it could have been interesting.
Is the fuelling decision always that of the pilot or is he/she merely observing company OP's? This scenario seemed like poor form and would have greatly increased ATC workload had the A/C diverted.
Would appreciate your side of the story though.
RP45
Shuttle pilot informed ATC that He could only hold twice around before having to Div and this was whilst EGGP was still closed Yesterday (24th). Was unwilling to declare an emergency but if approach hadn't tweaked their arrival order then it could have been interesting.
Is the fuelling decision always that of the pilot or is he/she merely observing company OP's? This scenario seemed like poor form and would have greatly increased ATC workload had the A/C diverted.
Would appreciate your side of the story though.
RP45
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHT may have been unwilling to declare an emergency because there was unlikely to be one.
EGGP may have been closed, but if that was known to the SHT crew prior to departure then they would defintely had fuel for another alternate. If it was an unforeseen closure then if ATC delays were expected to mean that SHT landed with less than final reserve fuel, an emergency call is necessary before ATC can take any 'expediting' action. It certainly doesn't mean that aircraft are running on fumes or likely to fall out of the sky.
Whilst there is no such thing as a 'fuel priority' call in UK airspace, the SHT crew were showing good airmanship by being open with ATC about their situation, allowing ATC to offer some flexibility if available, or if not, to advise the crew ahead of the game.
Fuel loading is always at the ultimate discretion of the PIC, but pilots do make such decisions with reference to commercial considerations as well as purely operational ones.
Excessive fuel carried not only wastes fuel by unnecssarily increasing aircraft weight, but causes extra wear on brakes, flaps, structural components etc.
Were you listening to this on an airband radio, by any chance? What would you have done differently?
The scenario certainly doesn't seem like poor form to me, and ATC workload in the event of a diversion ought to have in fact been much less in this case, had it proved necessary, since the crew had the airmanship to give them advance warning of the situation.
What is your experience of ATC workload levels in various scenarios from inside an ATC Centre? What makes you think that a div would have degraded safetyin this instance? How are you qualified to cast aspersions on the 'form' of the crew? Not necessarily sarcasm, just that more info on the context of your concern would be useful in answering your questions more fully.
EGGP may have been closed, but if that was known to the SHT crew prior to departure then they would defintely had fuel for another alternate. If it was an unforeseen closure then if ATC delays were expected to mean that SHT landed with less than final reserve fuel, an emergency call is necessary before ATC can take any 'expediting' action. It certainly doesn't mean that aircraft are running on fumes or likely to fall out of the sky.
Whilst there is no such thing as a 'fuel priority' call in UK airspace, the SHT crew were showing good airmanship by being open with ATC about their situation, allowing ATC to offer some flexibility if available, or if not, to advise the crew ahead of the game.
Fuel loading is always at the ultimate discretion of the PIC, but pilots do make such decisions with reference to commercial considerations as well as purely operational ones.
Excessive fuel carried not only wastes fuel by unnecssarily increasing aircraft weight, but causes extra wear on brakes, flaps, structural components etc.
Were you listening to this on an airband radio, by any chance? What would you have done differently?
The scenario certainly doesn't seem like poor form to me, and ATC workload in the event of a diversion ought to have in fact been much less in this case, had it proved necessary, since the crew had the airmanship to give them advance warning of the situation.
What is your experience of ATC workload levels in various scenarios from inside an ATC Centre? What makes you think that a div would have degraded safetyin this instance? How are you qualified to cast aspersions on the 'form' of the crew? Not necessarily sarcasm, just that more info on the context of your concern would be useful in answering your questions more fully.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please note: my post is entirely speculative. I make no claim to knowledge of the actual scenario, but attempt only to produce a personal hypothesis.
OK here goes. Captain Speaking is flying from LHR-MAN. Sensibly, he carries enough fuel to hold for some time before having to commit either to landing at MAN, or diverting to LPL. However, during his flight, LPL closes. On reaching DAYNE, Speaking has to recalculate. He has a secondary alternate, XXX, but XXX is further away than LPL- possibly much further away.
While he had plenty of fuel to hold if LPL was the diversion, his minimum divert figure to XXX is much higher. It is quite likely that he will have to divert within minutes if he is to reach XXX above minimum fuel. In these circumstances it is sensible to find out ASAP if a DIV will be necessary- it does NOT mean an emergency, as it is perfectly acceptable to use diversion fuel to hold if an expected approach time has been given.
OK here goes. Captain Speaking is flying from LHR-MAN. Sensibly, he carries enough fuel to hold for some time before having to commit either to landing at MAN, or diverting to LPL. However, during his flight, LPL closes. On reaching DAYNE, Speaking has to recalculate. He has a secondary alternate, XXX, but XXX is further away than LPL- possibly much further away.
While he had plenty of fuel to hold if LPL was the diversion, his minimum divert figure to XXX is much higher. It is quite likely that he will have to divert within minutes if he is to reach XXX above minimum fuel. In these circumstances it is sensible to find out ASAP if a DIV will be necessary- it does NOT mean an emergency, as it is perfectly acceptable to use diversion fuel to hold if an expected approach time has been given.
Last edited by CarltonBrowne the FO; 25th Oct 2006 at 14:42. Reason: GL's post popped up while I was writing this.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as it is perfectly acceptable to use diversion fuel to hold if an expected approach time has been given.
(JAR-OPS 1.375(b), App 1 to 1.375(a)(ii)&(iii), App 1 to 1.045A O 8.3.7).
An aircraft at a holding beacon must divert when the fuel reaches Reserve plus Diversion fuel. However it can continue to hold without an alternate being available so long as an EAT or maximum delay is known, a minimum of Reserve fuel will be on board on landing, and the landing could be completed in the event of any forecast deterioration in the weather and plausible single failures of ground and airborne facilities. Although these are the legal requirements, the crew would also take into accont the number of runways available at the destination and alternate. If at any stage a situation developed where the aircraft was going to land with less than Reserve fuel, then a Mayday would be declared.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perfectly acceptable situation to be in and sounds to me that the crew were well on top of the situation and doing all the right things given the situation. Therefore no news story!
However had the crew sat in the hold without advicing ATC of there fuel status and then suddenly declaring a Mayday that would have been bad airmanship. Never let the aircraft get ahead of you!!
However had the crew sat in the hold without advicing ATC of there fuel status and then suddenly declaring a Mayday that would have been bad airmanship. Never let the aircraft get ahead of you!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that the crew would have committed to EGCC if possible. Therefore using the div fuel+contingency to hold. From the situation you describe I would imagine the cew had decided not to commit because a landing was not assured at EGCC (for whatever reason). The crew would then have had enough fuel to divert elsewhere (not EGGP). Thus leaving only the contingency fuel+any extra, for holding at Dayne.
Assuming no extra fuel is loaded then that just leaves contingency for holding at Dayne. BA have a statistical policy on contingency fuel. In SH BA uses 99%. In other words, 99% of the arrivals from Dayne on that service from the last 3 months hold for less than 10mins. So 3 times a year that service will hold for longer than the 2 holds/10mins you've quoted RP45.
If the crew were unwilling to commit to a landing at EGCC, contingency fuel may be all they would have for holding at EGCC, assuming no fuel was gained en-route (poor routing etc..). Just because EGPP was shut doesn't justify carrying more fuel to EGCC other than for reasons of diverting to a more distant airfield. So the div fuel would be increased on the flight plan and contingency would remain the same.
Trip+Statistical contingency+div+res+taxi+(extras)= Total fuel.
In other words it sounds like the crew were following sops correctly and doing a good job of keeping atc informed. This does NOT sound like poor form at all!
Assuming no extra fuel is loaded then that just leaves contingency for holding at Dayne. BA have a statistical policy on contingency fuel. In SH BA uses 99%. In other words, 99% of the arrivals from Dayne on that service from the last 3 months hold for less than 10mins. So 3 times a year that service will hold for longer than the 2 holds/10mins you've quoted RP45.
If the crew were unwilling to commit to a landing at EGCC, contingency fuel may be all they would have for holding at EGCC, assuming no fuel was gained en-route (poor routing etc..). Just because EGPP was shut doesn't justify carrying more fuel to EGCC other than for reasons of diverting to a more distant airfield. So the div fuel would be increased on the flight plan and contingency would remain the same.
Trip+Statistical contingency+div+res+taxi+(extras)= Total fuel.
In other words it sounds like the crew were following sops correctly and doing a good job of keeping atc informed. This does NOT sound like poor form at all!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He has a secondary alternate, XXX, but XXX is further away than LPL- possibly much further away.
While he had plenty of fuel to hold if LPL was the diversion, his minimum divert figure to XXX is much higher
While he had plenty of fuel to hold if LPL was the diversion, his minimum divert figure to XXX is much higher
I can think of multiple suitable alternates around MAN not including LPL. You have LBA, EMA, BHX and BLK just to name a few. That is not counting Doncastor,Teeside or Coventry on top of that.
If he had "plenty" of fuel as you put it to hold he most probably would have had enough to divert to most alternates.
It sounds like the crew just let ATC know there intentions if the hold went on a little bit longer. Good practice and airmanship.
This would have alleviated work load to ATC in fact as they would have had an idea of the shuttles intentions if the situation would have continued. ATC would have been prepared and expecting the diversion and everything would have been set up for this possibly by the ATC assistants(if there is any working at the time). Just dumping it onto ATC's plate if they needed to divert and start heading towards the alternate would have been much more stupid.
Good forward planning. I think it was very good form to let ATC know in fact. Not trying to increase workload but you only have so much fuel and if you have to divert then you have to do it that is it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC yes, exactly right, I simplified it, for which I make no apology.
alibaba, if you check the actual distances involved, most of the alternates you mention are significantly further away than LPL when you factor in the actual tracks you will have to fly to get there. Add the fact that, unless you declare an emergency, diverting aircraft do not get priority at the alternate over that alternate airfield's own inbound traffic.
Then there is the commercial factor. Operators often have lists of preferred alternates, where ground handling, engineering, etc are available more easily. Of the list you mention, BLK would be a last resort (1869m, sure it's doable but why go looking for trouble?), and AFAIK BA only have a presence at LBA and BHX. Again, LBA has its own issues, so I suspect BHX would be the next option- far enough away that the decision to divert would have to be taken a lot earlier than when diverting to LPL.
All of which is a very long way of saying, I agree with you, good airmanship to prevent unpleasant surprises later.
alibaba, if you check the actual distances involved, most of the alternates you mention are significantly further away than LPL when you factor in the actual tracks you will have to fly to get there. Add the fact that, unless you declare an emergency, diverting aircraft do not get priority at the alternate over that alternate airfield's own inbound traffic.
Then there is the commercial factor. Operators often have lists of preferred alternates, where ground handling, engineering, etc are available more easily. Of the list you mention, BLK would be a last resort (1869m, sure it's doable but why go looking for trouble?), and AFAIK BA only have a presence at LBA and BHX. Again, LBA has its own issues, so I suspect BHX would be the next option- far enough away that the decision to divert would have to be taken a lot earlier than when diverting to LPL.
All of which is a very long way of saying, I agree with you, good airmanship to prevent unpleasant surprises later.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the thoughts on this and maybe i can clear up some Q's by adding a little more detail.
Without completely giving up my anonymity, i was working in the room at the time the events occured and for the record i think it was poor airmanship at the time as i regularly speak to A/C in the Manchester vicinity. There appears to be a trend developing with BA flights where they seem to be expecting little or no holding.
The inbound shuttle was made aware of the holding status pretty much on first call which was plenty south of EGNX. It was advised that slowing down would help the situation as there were already 6/7 A/C in the Dayne hold. The Radar return showed that the pilot was reducing their cruise speed and although the en-route section of Manchester can't provide EAT's, the A/C was given all the information they could reasonably expect.
The A/C entered the hold at FL130 and only when they got half around their first hold did they inform anyone that they cold only go round one more time.
At this time they were the #3 A/C from Dayne with at last 2 more A/C holding in both the EGCC northerly holds. On transferal to approach control the pilot was offered to call an emergency which was declined leaving a couple of options to ATC. effectively these were to give the A/c some low form of priority (queue jumping) or continue with the normal sequencing thus forcing the shuttle pilot to div to an alternate.
As i previously stated, the late call from the pilot as well as the lack of contingency fuel and the potential increase in workload of a late divert in what was an already very busy pieace of airspace (those of you that use the SE EGCC sector will no doubt know) was IMO poor form.
Please keep the constucive stuff coming as it is always useful to talk to the guys you work with outside of work!
And no I'm not listening on an airband receiver Gary Lager as i barely get paid enough already and can't imagine 'playing' planes for fun.
Without completely giving up my anonymity, i was working in the room at the time the events occured and for the record i think it was poor airmanship at the time as i regularly speak to A/C in the Manchester vicinity. There appears to be a trend developing with BA flights where they seem to be expecting little or no holding.
The inbound shuttle was made aware of the holding status pretty much on first call which was plenty south of EGNX. It was advised that slowing down would help the situation as there were already 6/7 A/C in the Dayne hold. The Radar return showed that the pilot was reducing their cruise speed and although the en-route section of Manchester can't provide EAT's, the A/C was given all the information they could reasonably expect.
The A/C entered the hold at FL130 and only when they got half around their first hold did they inform anyone that they cold only go round one more time.
At this time they were the #3 A/C from Dayne with at last 2 more A/C holding in both the EGCC northerly holds. On transferal to approach control the pilot was offered to call an emergency which was declined leaving a couple of options to ATC. effectively these were to give the A/c some low form of priority (queue jumping) or continue with the normal sequencing thus forcing the shuttle pilot to div to an alternate.
As i previously stated, the late call from the pilot as well as the lack of contingency fuel and the potential increase in workload of a late divert in what was an already very busy pieace of airspace (those of you that use the SE EGCC sector will no doubt know) was IMO poor form.
Please keep the constucive stuff coming as it is always useful to talk to the guys you work with outside of work!
And no I'm not listening on an airband receiver Gary Lager as i barely get paid enough already and can't imagine 'playing' planes for fun.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Liverpool has been Notamed closed 6 nights a week for runway repairs, hardly unexpected as they came out weeks ago.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jayteeto: Liverpool has been Notamed closed 6 nights a week for runway repairs, hardly unexpected as they came out weeks ago.
Last edited by jonathang; 25th Oct 2006 at 23:36.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try defining "significantly further" and "plenty of fuel". Are you talking 15 min holding here? Longer or shorter? 80 nm or more?
Not sure if you have been out in Canada or you have any ETOPs experience etc but you are not really limited on alternates in the UK compared to those types of operations in those places. I wouldn't say you are limited on most of main land Europe either! That is an opinion though. Contingency fuel is defined in JAR Ops for 3% and 5% along with reserve and final reserve etc. Extra fuel on top of that would be carried if needed due to the wx and other factors. It doesn't make sense to be carrying huge amounts of fuel if not needed though.
I think we essentially agree that you want to find out as soon as possible if a diversion might be necessary and that is all the crew where presumably doing. Reserve fuel for most alternates around LPL and MAN does not change by more that 10% generally at the most extreme for my current aircraft and airline and that includes track distances on arrivals etc. This would only be of a few percent for total fuel required. Only a few minutes flying time difference essentially. Not forgetting you can always contact the ATC for the alternate to check if the is any expected delays for that airport.
Mountain out of a mole hill really.
If the crew made a late call to MAN about the fuel state then I couldn't agree more Route Papa. It would have been Extra fuel if holding was expected though not Contingency and if no holding was expected you can't expect them to be carrying large amounts of Extra fuel. I seem to remember a UK AIC about London TMA and that for fuel planning purposes you should plan to have at least 15 min holding fuel Extra or built in to fuel required can't remember the AIC number or date though. I don't know if it is still current and whether it includes MAN TMA? Maybe with the current traffic growth into MAN, LPL and EMA that a similar AIC could be issued for MAN TMA?
Not sure if you have been out in Canada or you have any ETOPs experience etc but you are not really limited on alternates in the UK compared to those types of operations in those places. I wouldn't say you are limited on most of main land Europe either! That is an opinion though. Contingency fuel is defined in JAR Ops for 3% and 5% along with reserve and final reserve etc. Extra fuel on top of that would be carried if needed due to the wx and other factors. It doesn't make sense to be carrying huge amounts of fuel if not needed though.
I think we essentially agree that you want to find out as soon as possible if a diversion might be necessary and that is all the crew where presumably doing. Reserve fuel for most alternates around LPL and MAN does not change by more that 10% generally at the most extreme for my current aircraft and airline and that includes track distances on arrivals etc. This would only be of a few percent for total fuel required. Only a few minutes flying time difference essentially. Not forgetting you can always contact the ATC for the alternate to check if the is any expected delays for that airport.
Mountain out of a mole hill really.
If the crew made a late call to MAN about the fuel state then I couldn't agree more Route Papa. It would have been Extra fuel if holding was expected though not Contingency and if no holding was expected you can't expect them to be carrying large amounts of Extra fuel. I seem to remember a UK AIC about London TMA and that for fuel planning purposes you should plan to have at least 15 min holding fuel Extra or built in to fuel required can't remember the AIC number or date though. I don't know if it is still current and whether it includes MAN TMA? Maybe with the current traffic growth into MAN, LPL and EMA that a similar AIC could be issued for MAN TMA?
Last edited by alibaba; 25th Oct 2006 at 23:54. Reason: Added comment for Route Papa 45.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTE P45
At the risk of causing thread creep (a terrible habit of mine), what do you mean by "the en-route section of Manchester can't provide EAT's"?
I refer you to MATS pt 1 sect 3, ch 1, page6, para 9.2.2
"Area control shall clear arriving aircraft to the holding facility if the flight is remaining within class A to F airspace, give instructions to hold if necessary and include an expected approach time in the clearance"
G W-H
(Not having a dig, just seeking clarification)
At the risk of causing thread creep (a terrible habit of mine), what do you mean by "the en-route section of Manchester can't provide EAT's"?
I refer you to MATS pt 1 sect 3, ch 1, page6, para 9.2.2
"Area control shall clear arriving aircraft to the holding facility if the flight is remaining within class A to F airspace, give instructions to hold if necessary and include an expected approach time in the clearance"
G W-H
(Not having a dig, just seeking clarification)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G W-H, you are of course correct and to clarify, the only means of providing an accurate EAT is for the en route controller to retrieve the info from aproach control (located in the same room) who have the Exact EAT information in front of their worksation. This would require a greatly increased workload for both parties and as the en route worksations do not have EAT information available (the ones at Swanwick do however) it is usually left to a 'best guess' scenario.
I am recalling the MATS reference that you make but do not have it in front of me so i cannot guarantee this is correct but i think that we may provide the pilot with a "delay not determined" should the holding be weather generated or "delay less than 20 minutes" if we genuinely believe that there is likely to be less than 5 times around the hold. This was the case for the shuttle scenario and in practice the controller will do their best to provide some pertinent info along the lines of "expect once or twice around" or "3 A/C ahead of you, suggest you reduce now to MCS".
Even hazier in my memory is the requirements of a pilot for fuelling, is it not along the lines of enough for 30 minutes holding plus divert fuel, plus another 30 mins hold at alternate? I might be out on that but like the MATS 1, there are many rules imposed on ATC as well as the pilot, some are adhered to stringently and some don't often get used on a day-to-day basis (did you know that we are supposed to provide a time check to A/C outside of controlled airspace when telling them to reamin clear, no one has ever done that in front of me?!!!).
I digress. We will always try and provide as accurate a picture to I/B A/C as is possible but when we don't have the exact info at our fingertips it is often difficult to get it right for every pilot that requests.
Hope that helps
RP45
I am recalling the MATS reference that you make but do not have it in front of me so i cannot guarantee this is correct but i think that we may provide the pilot with a "delay not determined" should the holding be weather generated or "delay less than 20 minutes" if we genuinely believe that there is likely to be less than 5 times around the hold. This was the case for the shuttle scenario and in practice the controller will do their best to provide some pertinent info along the lines of "expect once or twice around" or "3 A/C ahead of you, suggest you reduce now to MCS".
Even hazier in my memory is the requirements of a pilot for fuelling, is it not along the lines of enough for 30 minutes holding plus divert fuel, plus another 30 mins hold at alternate? I might be out on that but like the MATS 1, there are many rules imposed on ATC as well as the pilot, some are adhered to stringently and some don't often get used on a day-to-day basis (did you know that we are supposed to provide a time check to A/C outside of controlled airspace when telling them to reamin clear, no one has ever done that in front of me?!!!).
I digress. We will always try and provide as accurate a picture to I/B A/C as is possible but when we don't have the exact info at our fingertips it is often difficult to get it right for every pilot that requests.
Hope that helps
RP45
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GWH - if the delay is less than 20 mins you do not get an EAT.
At TC, Heathrow and Gatwick traffic managers will often put up individual delay times if it is getting near to 20 mins (i.e. 14, 15 minutes) and I for one always tell A/C "your delay is ... mins"
HOWEVER - it is not a requirement on the traffic managers behalf.... it is more to give me, the Area controller an idea of delays and it usually means that they are on the increase i.e. it's a warning to me that EATS may well soon come in force for the next lot of arrivals.
My only obligation to the A/C would be to say "delay is less than 20 mins" if I really felt pedantic.
Alibaba - being told that an A/C can only hold 1 and a half more times is what I would consider a late call.
A/C surely know that they are destined to a busy airfield. 20 minutes holding should be expected, anything less is a bonus. It sounds like this particular A/C did not have the fuel to do that. That in my book amounts to bad airmanship!!
At TC, Heathrow and Gatwick traffic managers will often put up individual delay times if it is getting near to 20 mins (i.e. 14, 15 minutes) and I for one always tell A/C "your delay is ... mins"
HOWEVER - it is not a requirement on the traffic managers behalf.... it is more to give me, the Area controller an idea of delays and it usually means that they are on the increase i.e. it's a warning to me that EATS may well soon come in force for the next lot of arrivals.
My only obligation to the A/C would be to say "delay is less than 20 mins" if I really felt pedantic.
Alibaba - being told that an A/C can only hold 1 and a half more times is what I would consider a late call.
A/C surely know that they are destined to a busy airfield. 20 minutes holding should be expected, anything less is a bonus. It sounds like this particular A/C did not have the fuel to do that. That in my book amounts to bad airmanship!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTE P45
Thanks for the clarification. I was just trying to make sure that there wasn't a local oddity at Manch that meant that the TMA bods couldn't give EATS.
We too have strange rules in our books. I am supposed to inform the tower on start if I intend to make a CAT3 aprroach at my destination... even if it is 8 hours and another continent away!!!
anotherthing
I was just clarifying the fact that Manch Control can provide EATs, as at first look it seemed as if they may not be able to.
I don't really think that all aircraft should be expecting to hold for 20mins inbound to EGCC either. The situation is not the same as the LTMA and I cannot remember the last time I held on the way to Manchester. Indeed, the statistics gathered for statistical contingency fuel that JackOffAllTrades alluded to earlier seem to indicate that less than 10mins holding/vectoring/other untoward events occur on 99% of Manchester flights.
G W-H
Thanks for the clarification. I was just trying to make sure that there wasn't a local oddity at Manch that meant that the TMA bods couldn't give EATS.
We too have strange rules in our books. I am supposed to inform the tower on start if I intend to make a CAT3 aprroach at my destination... even if it is 8 hours and another continent away!!!
anotherthing
I was just clarifying the fact that Manch Control can provide EATs, as at first look it seemed as if they may not be able to.
I don't really think that all aircraft should be expecting to hold for 20mins inbound to EGCC either. The situation is not the same as the LTMA and I cannot remember the last time I held on the way to Manchester. Indeed, the statistics gathered for statistical contingency fuel that JackOffAllTrades alluded to earlier seem to indicate that less than 10mins holding/vectoring/other untoward events occur on 99% of Manchester flights.
G W-H
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GWH
valid point about the holding for Manch.... as a controller, i would still like as much warning as possible about low fuel states. I have had many an A/C tell me that they can only hold for 15 or 20 mins then will have to divert. This sort of info is ideal.
That gives me and the guys behind me plenty of time to warn people, think of alternate plans and start formulating a flight plan change in the system (although flying to an alternate as per original flight plan, it still involves our assistants implement what is effectively a change).
The more notice the better... but it is a 2 way thing... if we (ATC) can give A/C a realistic figure early, they (aircrew) might come back with a statement regarding fuel state early.
Unfortunately for the TMA, the en route guys do not get as much info as the terminal area guys... i.e. they do not get told individual delays, only when we go into EATs. By the time you are transferred to us at West Drayton (and consequently told the proper figures about the impending delay), it can be quite a short run in to the hold (we often get A/C inbound to WILLO at GWC!).
when it starts to get like that, often the most we can do at TC is warn our fellow controllers and ask them to slow you down... that usually starts to make people think about the possibility of holding as well.
It might change for the better when we go down to Swanwick - all the area guys need is a feed from the remote camera that points down on a piece of paper in our OPs room stating delays... it's that antiquated but it works because it is simple!
valid point about the holding for Manch.... as a controller, i would still like as much warning as possible about low fuel states. I have had many an A/C tell me that they can only hold for 15 or 20 mins then will have to divert. This sort of info is ideal.
That gives me and the guys behind me plenty of time to warn people, think of alternate plans and start formulating a flight plan change in the system (although flying to an alternate as per original flight plan, it still involves our assistants implement what is effectively a change).
The more notice the better... but it is a 2 way thing... if we (ATC) can give A/C a realistic figure early, they (aircrew) might come back with a statement regarding fuel state early.
Unfortunately for the TMA, the en route guys do not get as much info as the terminal area guys... i.e. they do not get told individual delays, only when we go into EATs. By the time you are transferred to us at West Drayton (and consequently told the proper figures about the impending delay), it can be quite a short run in to the hold (we often get A/C inbound to WILLO at GWC!).
when it starts to get like that, often the most we can do at TC is warn our fellow controllers and ask them to slow you down... that usually starts to make people think about the possibility of holding as well.
It might change for the better when we go down to Swanwick - all the area guys need is a feed from the remote camera that points down on a piece of paper in our OPs room stating delays... it's that antiquated but it works because it is simple!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad airmanship would be sitting in a hold and burning off all your fuel without a plan and knowing when to divert. Running out of fuel would be a rather more stupid thing to do don't ye think.
Depends when the call was made to ATC about the necessity to divert does it not? I think if you read my previous post anotherthing, it is what I said.
Two times around the hold is what Route Papa 45 said. In a hold that is 8 minutes flight time generally. The crew are only doing the sensible thing and letting ATC know that they will probably have to divert in 8 minutes. How much time do you need to let ATC know?
The crew probably would have about 1 hr to 1 hr 20 min of fuel and 8 min would make about 10% of total fuel so the crew did have a bit to spare.
20 min of spare fuel on a 737 or A320, which I am assuming was the BA aircraft in question. Would be equivalent to about 1/2 a tonne or just over of extra fuel. It could be as much as 800kg. That is a fairly sizeable amount of fuel to be carrying around if the crew didn't expect delays and without any requirement to carry that amount. Carrying fuel for no purpose costs money pure and simple. Some companies make pilots answer for this, some don’t. That could possibly be for another thread about culture for safety and fuel decisions.
There could have been a combination of reasons for slightly lower fuel than the usual at arrival into MAN. A long time at the holding point waiting for departure from LHR for example and other things such as an early than expected descent, poor routings and unfavourable winds etc. The crew might have wanted more fuel than needed for the diversion due to extra traffic at alternates due LPL runway closure. CarltonBrowne the FO had rightly mentioned about no priority for diverting traffic which would have been a consideration.
I am not trying to say either party was right or wrong. I am just trying to give another opinion for what might have been going on in this situation.
Depends when the call was made to ATC about the necessity to divert does it not? I think if you read my previous post anotherthing, it is what I said.
If the crew made a late call to MAN about the fuel state then I couldn't agree more Route Papa
The crew probably would have about 1 hr to 1 hr 20 min of fuel and 8 min would make about 10% of total fuel so the crew did have a bit to spare.
20 min of spare fuel on a 737 or A320, which I am assuming was the BA aircraft in question. Would be equivalent to about 1/2 a tonne or just over of extra fuel. It could be as much as 800kg. That is a fairly sizeable amount of fuel to be carrying around if the crew didn't expect delays and without any requirement to carry that amount. Carrying fuel for no purpose costs money pure and simple. Some companies make pilots answer for this, some don’t. That could possibly be for another thread about culture for safety and fuel decisions.
There could have been a combination of reasons for slightly lower fuel than the usual at arrival into MAN. A long time at the holding point waiting for departure from LHR for example and other things such as an early than expected descent, poor routings and unfavourable winds etc. The crew might have wanted more fuel than needed for the diversion due to extra traffic at alternates due LPL runway closure. CarltonBrowne the FO had rightly mentioned about no priority for diverting traffic which would have been a consideration.
I am not trying to say either party was right or wrong. I am just trying to give another opinion for what might have been going on in this situation.
Last edited by alibaba; 26th Oct 2006 at 19:11. Reason: Typos as normal. :]
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A GOOD PLACE TO FLY, DRINK, **** AND SLEEP.
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to keep on about contingency fuel but, it is possible that a large amount of it could have been burnt prior to arriving at dayne, as Alibaba said. I have in the past (in my SH days) loaded 20 mins worth of taxi fuel at LHR and then spend 35-40 mins taxiing around the airport or holding before departure. The rules are contingency fuel may be used any time after engine start. Also contingency fuel may be reduced to 90% (i.e 30 or so days a year!) before departure. I never feel too comfortable doing it, however it is expected of us, and it's not intrinsically dangerous. Especially flying over europe with all the available airfields when compared with some parts of the world.
So, my point now is that the crew may have arrived at dayne with less than planned fuel anyway. What do you expect them to do? Turn round, go back to LHR, refuel and try again????
. No, they did what any crew would have done and continued hoping not to hold at all, or considered all en-route divs (err... ok a tec stop in BHX would be equally embarrassing! ).
Seriously, if you frequently have an issue with the shuttles arriving at dayne not having enough holding capability.... Tell BA, not the pilots. BA never listens to us! If the message gets through the flight tech lot will change the stats so we turn up with more gas.
So, my point now is that the crew may have arrived at dayne with less than planned fuel anyway. What do you expect them to do? Turn round, go back to LHR, refuel and try again????
. No, they did what any crew would have done and continued hoping not to hold at all, or considered all en-route divs (err... ok a tec stop in BHX would be equally embarrassing! ).Seriously, if you frequently have an issue with the shuttles arriving at dayne not having enough holding capability.... Tell BA, not the pilots. BA never listens to us! If the message gets through the flight tech lot will change the stats so we turn up with more gas.
Last edited by JackOffallTrades; 26th Oct 2006 at 18:49. Reason: numptyism