SIA Low Fuel at LHR

[halo]

And of course, ever since the BA jumbo went onto the grass last year, most crews are very reticent to taxi around at speed!

[M.Mouse]

Er..... wasn't that a strong gusting X-wind on a wet runway at a light weight during the rollout?

[PaperTiger]

Well we must be using different terminology here.. .One minute to cross the runway ? I could walk it in that time.. .But I'll concede, so we can get back to discussing fuel.

[Ignition Override]

Interesting. . .. .Could the747 Captain have easily diverted without declaring a system problem or emergency with Air Traffic Control? Would Singapore Airlines Flight Ops normally consider sharply criticizing or even punishing the Captain for a precautionary divert, even earlier in the descent towards Brussels, Amsterdam or Frankfurt etc, if prolonged vectoring and/or holding had been anticipated during the initial descent? . .. .Does Singapore Airlines Flight Operations expect, or worse, demand that any Captain not divert until the aircraft has, as is our company example for minimum divert fuel, Alternate + Reserve (figured for cruise burn at FL 250) fuel onboard? We can always divert with this so-called F.O. Manual "Decision Fuel" (I doubt that our Chief Pilots realize how many diverts take place, or what what the total fuel was when they began), but almost all of our folks would add an extra 1,000 to 1500 or even 2,000 pounds to our official theoretical minimum " Decison Fuel", for a certain twin-jet. Maybe our corporate accountants have influenced what this Flight Ops Manual fuel quantity consists of? At Value Jet, now known as Air Tran, a former Captain was required to call his Dispatcher before each and every flight in order to board ANY "Contingency Fuel"! Value Jet was too cheap and greedy to plan it beforehand. This guy is one of our First Officers.. .. .Heck, ATC often stops you from climbing to the planned altitude and direct routing during diverts and there are too many cases of thunderstorms and/or dense air traffic between you and your alternate airport. I almost always declare "min fuel" during diverts, so they will do their job better. You might get to the alternate and only have two green gear lights or a "Slat Disagreement" light, and wiith bad weather close by. If you fly the line instead of a desk, be ready to throw your book policy and theory out the window before being intimidated by Ops Policy, if safety is about to be compromised. But I've never worked in other cultures. Our Dispatchers are already warm and safe on the ground when we make the decision as to our Divert Fuel. Sometimes a company dispatcher, although they are all very valuable, has less influence ("clout") via a phone call, on ATC's decision to get you out of holding or extended vectors, than some of them realize, or they can be overly optimistic.. . . . <small>[ 07 March 2002, 02:53: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</small>

[gengis]

I quote the following report verbatim on this particular flight as it was published in the fleet newsletter/circular to all 744 crew (dated Apr 2001):. .. .“On 14 January 2001, SQ### landed in LHR with 3900 kg. The final fuel remaining on shutdown was 2900 kg. The flight was planned on a redispatch flight plan with no excess fuel. At TOD, the FMS-predicted fuel on landing was 8200 kg. Lengthy holding over LAM resulted in the aircraft leaving LAM with an FMS-predicted fuel on landing of 5200 kg. Shortly after leaving LAM, the EICAS message “FUEL QTY LOW” came on, having been triggered by 800 kg fuel remaining in tank 2M. Fuel distribution when aircraft chocks-on was: R2 (0 kg), 1M (100 kg), 2M (900 kg), CWT (1000 kg), 3M (900 kg), 4M (100 kg), R3 (0 kg).. .. .The 100 kg fuel remaining in each of the tanks 1M and 4M was consistent with the intent of the NNC for “FUEL QTY LOW” which is to ensure that all engines are fed from whichever main tank(s) that contains fuel. The fuel feed will be shared, with the majority of the feed coming from the outboard tanks. If an outboard tank is depleted, there will be no interruption in engine fuel feed. Though this fuel would be below the level of the hydraulic system heat exchanger, during an otherwise normal flight, the aircraft would be landing well before a system overheat can occur.. .. .Fuel in CWT was reported to have reached 0kg at TOD but increased on the descent to 1000kg. Boeing has replied that the observed FQIS Indications are within the combined overall inaccuracy tolerances of the FQIS and the pitch attitude errors. In order to meet the requirement that the gauge displays zero when the tank is empty, positive errors are biased out at quantities below 5% full. Due to this negative bias feature, the display would typically under-read at low quantities (below 5% full). Additionally, in-flight conditions may have different attitude error contributions i.e. the TOD attitude would be in the range of 0 to 5 degrees pitch, whereas the attitude during the descent and hold would be somewhat different. In other words, in this particular case, there was some fuel left in the CWT even though it registered 0kg at TOD. This quantity was progressively being reflected during the descent and landing.”. . . .- end quote. .. .I further understand that the landing fuel was 3900 kg, but the aircraft was held up on a taxiway by another aircraft on tow & in the ensuing long taxi the final fuel at shutdown was 2900 kg.. . . . <small>[ 06 March 2002, 09:21: Message edited by: gengis ]</small>

[Wings]

Tow points I would like to make.. .Point One.. .A colleague of mine was Flight Safety Officer in our company, an airline in South Eats Asia. He attended a meeting of the Orient Airlines Association Flight Safety Officers, where the "Loss of Face" problem was addressed. The actual topic was pilots continuing a 'bad' approach rather than 'suffering loss of face' and going around. When my friend suggested that how about, the next time a pilot elects to do a go around rather than push a bad approach, the airline makes a big thing of it, praising the pilot as a hero / super safe flyer etc. The other airlines would have nothing of it, suggesting that the pilot should never have got into a bad situation in the first place. These are the Flight Safety Officers, - fellow pilots who are meant to be on our side.. .The point I am trying to make is that the Loss of Face / Push on Itis culture is still very strong in a lot of airlines. If a Captain diverts, he knows men in suits sitting in a comfortable office weeks after, having had plenty of time and help to assess the situation will villify him because they calculated that IN THEORY he could have continued and landed legally. In this situation, a Captain who elects to divert is putting his job on the line.. .. .Point Two.. .Our airline is very lenient and allows us to put on extra fuel for any reasonable reason such as expected lower than planned flight levels, en route wx, destination wx, local knowledge - expect holding. . .Despite this great situation we still occasionally get caught out. Headwinds much stronger than forecast making you elect to fly at long range cruise, only to have ATC require you to either speed up or descend to a (un economical) flight level.. .The point I am making is that sometimes s**t happens. We are paid to make the right decisions in these situations. Assuming we make the right decisions, it is management's job to support us, helping to make our industry safe and in turn help improve profits. No one needs bad press whether it's us here on Pprune or in the newspapers. Whether it's a low fuel or a crash, we should be working to make the industry safer, and that includes management.

[BackSeatPilot]

gengis. .. .Interesting, although it begs the question - What was the mgmt response to the outcome? (Was the the info from the manufacturer there as additional info or an excuse?) . .. .BSP

[gengis]

BackSeatPilot. .. ."Interesting, although it begs the question - What was the mgmt response to the outcome? (Was the the info from the manufacturer there as additional info or an excuse?)". .. .The report was contained in a routine newsletter to pilots in which they attempt to address matters of concern to line pilots. I personally do not believe that the company encourages this sort of thing. Who would? It is not my experience, so far, that one would face penalty for a legitimate diversion - I did one about 3 years ago with no repurcussions. As to whether the info from the manufacturer was included as an excuse or not, it is not my belief that it is. I will just say that the quote was reproduced precisely as it was published and while I am not privy to any additional information I do not get the feeling that it was written merely with an intent to justify the incident. Of course one is free to read into it what one would. Actually there was even a time not so long ago when there would hardly be any reference to an incident of their own; that they are now obviously addressing shortcomings somewhat more openly is something to be applauded.

[Aviatrix69]

Warped factor, thank you very much for the link to the AIC 36! I've printed it out and put it with my papers, info I have never seen before.. .. .And EGLL is really overcrowded, receiving the landing clearance below CAT I mim last night was a close call... without being advised of late LC <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .Nobody ever stated the final reserve fuel fur the 747 in this thread. As long as you land above FRF I don't see the problem. You land below, emergency must have been declared. Did they?. .. .Cheers

[Whiskery]

gengis - thankyou for the facts, at last. 8200 kgs fuel on board, TOD is adequate for a flight ex re-dispatch. SIN - LHR on a re-dispatch flight plan on the classic, you would be having a good trip to arrive TOD with 9,000 kgs.. .. .Keep trying sniffer, you'll have a win one day. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 08:39: Message edited by: Whiskery ]</small>

[747400CA]

I appreciate the professional dialogue on this topic. . .. .As one contributor indicated, "It's good to talk about these things. " . .. .Risking accusations by some of flogging a dead horse, may I invite further "what if?" discussion on this topic?. .. .A quick look at my company OpsMan Reserve Fuel Planning Table shows 30 minute holding fuel for a 747-400 aircraft as follows:. .. .8380 lbs. (approximately 3800 kgs) reserve at GWT 520,000 lbs. (approximately 236,000 kgs - typical passenger / combi landing weight). .. .10060 lbs. (approximately 4600 kgs) at GWT 660,000 lbs. (300,000 kgs - typical freighter landing weight). .. .If one subscribes to the view that . .. ."...when the fuel gets to a state where you may now land with less than "Reserve" (30 mins holding), you make a PAN call. When you will land with less than Reserve, it becomes a Mayday...)" . .. .then these quantities become one's absolute minimum landing fuel in a 747-400 aircraft. However, my current company OpsMan Fuel Policy also specifies [wisely, in my humble opinion] a Minimum Landing Fuel of 12,000 lb. (approximately 5,500 kg) as follows:. .. .Minimum Fuel to Execute a Go-Around 5,600 lbs. (approximately 2,600 kgs) - fuel required to execute a go-around at runway threshold, climb to 1000 feet AGL, fly a pattern, intercept a 3° glideslope approximately 2 1/2 miles from the runway, and continue to landing; and. .. .Minimum Fuel at Touchdown 2,400 lbs. (approximately 1,100 kgs) - fuel required to ensure adequate fuel boost pump coverage to keep the engines running for reversing and throughout the landing roll; and. .. .Fuel Indicator Error 3,960 lbs. (approximately 1,800 kgs) - the maximum design fuel quantity error for the main tanks. (center and reserve tanks empty). .. .Thus, a Minimum Fuel for Landing (Indicated) of 12,000 lbs. (approximately 5,500 kgs) assures sufficient fuel will be onboard at the threshold in a worst case condition with the maximum fuel indicator error (indicators read too high). . .. .This minimum landing fuel figure (albeit in varying forms) is in at least three airlines' 747-400 operating manuals, and - to the best of my knowledge - appears in most operating manuals for this aircraft found around the world.. .. .A cautious approach to a low fuel situation upon arrival (at LHR or elsewhere) might be to apply the most conservative value and make the company limit of 12,000 lb. / 5,500 kg an absolute minimum landing fuel either at destination or at the alternate. . .. .I sense, however, there may be differing opinions from forum participants with greater knowledge of the CAA regulatory landscape - as well as flight crew and ATC controllers with more experience in the LHR environment - and so invite further comment on this thread.. .. .Recognizing too that each company has a unique flight operations 'culture' that might (or must) be considered in the decisions one makes, I should like to state that it is not my intention here to promote 'second guessing' of the SIA crew involved in this actual landing - or any crew involved in a similar situation.. .. .Having said that, it is with the intent of prompting further professional discussion in this thread - from which we all might learn - that I solicit from knowledgeable individuals answers and opinions in response to the following: . .. .1) From the SIA 744 fleet newsletter (excerpt previously posted): . .. ."...The flight was planned on a redispatch flight plan with no excess fuel. At TOD, the FMS-predicted fuel on landing was 8200 kg.". .. .A 'tight' flight plan with no excess fuel is indeed economical - until one must perform a divert to an off-line airport, that is.. .. .At past companies I have worked for, additional fuel for redispatch / enroute weather / terminal weather and ATC considerations was either . .. . (a) prescribed by the company depending on sector historical data and the particular terminal environment; or. .. . (b) allowed at captain discretion (without displacing pax or payload). .. .Questions:. .. .For 747-400 or other 'long haul' crews - does your airline have provisions for loading 'extra' fuel? Is the amount prescribed by the company for each sector? If so, what factors are taken into account? . .. .Conversely, if 'extra' fuel (beyond the regulatory required fuel)is not prescribed, does the commander have authority to specify additional fuel? . .. .Does the amount of additional fuel (or the reasons for loading it) have to be justified, and - if so - to whom? . .. .Lastly - are there potentially adverse consequences to requesting "too much fuel' too many times at your company? . .. .Is the alternative of a possible precautionary divert for fuel considerations better than the certainty of an interview with your chief pilot or flight manager over 'excessive' fuel use? . .. .What would the consequences of such a precautionary divert (to an on-line or off-line station) be at your company?. .. .2) "...Lengthy holding over LAM resulted in the aircraft leaving LAM with an FMS-predicted fuel on landing of 5200 kg..." . .. .For 'long haul' crews familiar with the UK operating and regulatory environment - would you under similar circumstances (predicted landing fuel approaching minimum while holding at LAM) make a 'PAN' call indicating an urgent fuel situation? . .. .For ATC participants - if an aircraft did make a "PAN' call during the hold, what would the ATC response be? . .. .Would the indication of an urgent fuel situation "...ensure priority handling..." as the Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) indicates, or would the 'real world' response have to be something different - and why?. .. .3) "...Shortly after leaving LAM, the EICAS message “FUEL QTY LOW” came on, having been triggered by 800 kg fuel remaining in tank 2M..." . .. .Clearly, any 747-400 crew will know by this time they will have less than recommended minimum landing fuel of 5,500 kg over the threshold.. .. .Depending on landing weight, an aircraft in this circumstance is now approaching the absolute regulatory minimum of 30 minute holding or "Final Reserve" fuel.. .. .Questions:. .. .For 747-400 skippers out there - with your ability to execute a go around now a question, would you continue without indicating the aircraft actual fuel state with the expectation - based on your experience operating in the LHR environment - that it will turn out fine? . .. .Or would you "fess up" and make a 'PAN' call as a precaution at this point? . .. .If you did make the 'PAN' call, would you expect any regulatory consequences (as in a 'MAYDAY') in the UK?. .. .For ATC types - with the aircraft already having departed LAM, would a 'PAN' call at this point have been useful or productive? . .. .Or would the response have to be something like "...understood, expect no further delay, currently number XX for landing...". .. .4) "...SQ ### landed in LHR with 3900 kg. The final fuel remaining on shutdown was 2900 kg...". .. .For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that "Murphy" has a heyday, the unthinkable happens, and preceding traffic fails to clear the runway or an unexpected runway incursion forces the tower controller to instruct a missed approach...what would you do?. .. .Is it time for a 'Mayday' call declaring an emergency? What next?. .. .For 747-400 crews - mindful that Boeing says it takes 3800 kg to keep 'em running through a go around, approach, landing, and rollout, would you regard 3900 kg (indicated) remaining as insufficient fuel to comply with the missed approach instructions? . .. .If so, would you elect to continue to a landing either on an adjacent taxiway or on the available runway (in front of or beyond the offending traffic) as the least dangerous option?. .. .Or would you breath a prayer and go around, declare the emergency, and request (or execute pending ATC approval) the close pattern and 2 1/2 mile approach described above to get the aircraft on the ground before running out of fuel?. .. .ATC controllers knowledgeable in the LHR environment are specifically invited to comment at this point. . .. .If an aircraft (which had not previously indicated an urgent fuel situation) suddenly declared an emergency and responded as described above, would you be most comfortable in . .. .(a) an extremis landing on the longest unobstructed length of concrete available in front of it , or . .. .(b) your ability to provide adequate traffic separation while a 2 1/2 close pattern was flown?. .. .5) Lastly - Safe at the gate with 2900 kg (or less) and a happy ending to the story - that is, until the paperwork has to be done... . .. .MTOW wrote:. .. ."...If that ‘genuine’ emergency is a shortage of fuel, you declare a Mayday, get the priority to land that this affords you, and you and your company can then explain to the British CAA the circumstances that led you into the emergency situation – [and take your license with you, ’cos might be required to leave it with the CAA when they’ve finished interviewing you]...". .. .The last question:. .. .For 'long haul' captains (at SIA and elsewhere) - how do you think the hearing with the CAA (as well as your chief pilot or flight manager) did (in the case of the 'real' story) or would (in our fictitious example) go?. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 22:57: Message edited by: 747400CA ]</small>

[Oliver James]

747400CA, LHR Approach ATCO.. .. .As far as I am concerned, anytime anybody declares a fuel PAN before or after LAM, I part the waves. He gets a direct heading to a comfortable length final and I move the traffic ahead of him out of the way. I consider this essential if he has declared a PAN because we are past the stage of being 'tight' and real danger exists. We don't know what else might go wrong (with flaps or gear for example) and his landing has to be safeguarded. . .. .If it was the case that moving the traffic out of the way was going to be impossible due workload etc. I would stop the outbound traffic and have the departure runway sterilised for him. We don't need the PAN to become a MAYDAY.. .. .I have firsthand experience of a single runway airport being blocked as I turned a seriously mishandling aircraft onto final at 13 miles. These things tend not to happen, so we come to think they can't. Once we have got to PAN, everything else has to be let go.. .. .As far as landing with a blocked strip is concerned: I offered the above traffic the taxiway - he turned it down sharply.. .. .Point 4

[Whiskery]

There is sometimes a brief moment, when at the planning stages of a flight, the "what if" factor is considered. What distances the professional pilot from the amateur is the number of "what ifs" that get factored into the final fuel figure.. .. .Our Company fuel policy requires, at the planning stage, that a minimum of DEST to ALT plus 60 minutes FR should be in tanks on landing. If the destination does not require planning for an alternate, then the landing fuel may be reduced to not less than 60 minutes. Flights ex redispatch must plan to land with not less than 30 minutes FR. (which also happens to be the depressurised min. FR). .. .Now here's the catch - for destinations LHR and LAX, with exception ex redispatch, 60 minutes FR will be carried, plus any additional fuel the Commander deems necessary for holding.. .. .On a flight ex redispatch into LHR (or LAX) you never get to carry the additional fuel for holding. I am comfortable with 9000kgs TOD if the weather is fine and no holding. Even with a lap around good old Lambourne you should have around 5000 kgs on landing. Of course I prefer the usual 12000 +, but you occasionally have to earn your money in this industry.. .. .So now we come to the "what if" scenario. Well, there are so many that if one were to try and cover even half, you would be carrying full tanks everywhere. . .. .My final fuel figure on each flight reflects what I and my crew am comfortable with at destination or alternate. It takes into account weather, ATC requirements and aircraft performance. I confess I don't consider sudden runway closures, abnormal / emergency operations, flood or fire at the planning stage - it could ruin what started out to be a great day!. . . . <small>[ 13 March 2002, 05:22: Message edited by: Whiskery ]</small>

[Traffic]

Very interesting thread. Shows that this is a subject of critical importance to all.. .. .Twas and old BCal 707 skipper who, upon being quizzed as to why he called for more fuel than appeared necessary, said:. .. ."The only time you have too much f....g fuel is when your an on f...g fire! Now fill her up".. .. .Call me old fashioned but that statment has stayed front and centre for the past 25 years.. .. .You abrogate, or the company takes away, your right to uplift the amount of fuel you want then you have immediately taken your eye off the ball. . .. .If fuel just happens then s..t will not be far behind in a world where the please explain for diversions is more intimidating than the please explain for landing on vapour.

[Wiley]

Those making comments along the lines of "I'll carry whatever fuel I feel comfortable with and damn the accountants" work for a very different organisation to the one I do (and would like to continue working for). . .. .The fact is, at least in my airline, that this is simply not possible on many occasions, since minor annoyances like payload and max takeoff / max landing weight all too frequently intrude. (It’s almost the norm to land at LHR at MLW after carrying min CFP fuel.) If the weather's marginal, they'll often as not give me the extra fuel I ask for, but (surprisingly enough for people who are in this business to make a buck), they're not at all enthusiastic about taking off payload or kicking off passengers just because the captain wants to carry another couple of tonnes of fuel 'for mum and the kids'. . .. .Having said that, I'm of a similar mind to MTOW and his comments earlier in the thread. I'll carry company-recommended minimum fuel into LHR if that's what they want me to do, but when the 'fuel remaining' gauge reaches 'n' KGs - my min diversion fuel - (a figure I spend some time calculating well before TOPD), I'm out of there and off to my alternate. (And usually, I can bug out before reaching that figure because the truly excellent ATC that LHR enjoys keeps us all in the loop with EATs and trends.) . .. .If the weather and EAT are such that they will allow me to nominate the second runway as my alternate, I'm quite content to hang in the hold until I reach a fuel remaining figure that will allow me to LAND with my 30 minutes final reserve untouched - and I'll give the time I expect to reach that figure to ATC well ahead of that time.. .. .And if for some reason ATC are unable to allow me to start the approach when I get to that magic figure, it's time to declare an emergency, because there's no other way to describe the situation you're in. However, I'll be having a minor bleat 5 or so minutes beforehand to make sure the controller's completely aware of my situation so hopefully it never gets to that.. .. .As for the respondent who says his company allows the second runway to be nominated down to Cat II conditions, all I can say is that the pilots in that airline quite obviously have hairier chests than I've got - or ever hope to have!!! My company requires 1000' ceiling, 5000M visibility and less than 80% of max crosswind to nominate a second runway and I sincerely hope it stays at those limits. I don’t know how anyone can say that he believes a landing is 'assured' in Cat II conditions, especially if that landing is your last chance before all the noise stops.. .. .(Edited by spelling police.). . . . <small>[ 13 March 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: Wiley ]</small>

[NigelOnDraft]

Hi Wiley.... .. .&lt;&lt;As for the respondent who says his company allows the second runway to be nominated down to Cat II conditions, all I can say is that the pilots in that airline quite obviously have hairier chests than I've got - or ever hope to have!!! &gt;&gt; Was me... but I have yet to meet a Capt who would go along with it. Most are happy to CAT 1 limits, me - I would say weather good enough to find the airfield without external assistance - somewhere between 500' & 1000' with good vis underneath.. .. .I think you hit the nail on the head above. Safety is not the fuel you depart with. It's what you do (the 'gates') as it runs out. The number of people who load fuel up before departure and state "safety" as the cause. Disagree. Its the same individuals who then seem not to know what to do as it runs short... If the company want you to take CFP fuel, then fine, but set realistic gates for diverting / emergency calls / "committing". Then if CFP is not enough, they will get hassle from CAA / ATC / Pax / Beancounters over the number of calls / diversions. .. .NoD

[tired]

Wiley & Nigel - spot on, well said!

[Whiskery]

NoD -. .. . </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> Safety is not the fuel you depart with. It's what you do (the 'gates') as it runs out. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">On the strength of that statement, I would like to invite you as the guest speaker at our next CRM refresher course. . .. .Precisely !

[DownIn3Green]

I think