No fuel to go-around
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so what are you going to do then...
were the words I heard uttered by the Heathrow Director (120.4) the other morning when an aircraft, when told that the hold at BIG was 20mins, said, "I don't have fuel for that".... ATC then asked, "are you declaring an emergency" .. I then didn't hear how this situation resolved as I had to press on myself but it made me realise that despite all our pprune talk about sufficient fuel there are still airlines (and the voice was british) who seem to think that by implying a pressure on fuel they will be queue-jumped!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zkdli
Well, it's all above my head.
For the record, I'd rather divert to LGW than see another company's a/c divert unfairly on my behalf. Fair's fair, and I know my current type can cut the mustard on a level playing field. Slot swaps *within company* are different (if atc have the capacity to handle it) because no-one else is compromised, and its up to the company to prioritise its own assets as long as no-one else is affected.
For the record, I'd rather divert to LGW than see another company's a/c divert unfairly on my behalf. Fair's fair, and I know my current type can cut the mustard on a level playing field. Slot swaps *within company* are different (if atc have the capacity to handle it) because no-one else is compromised, and its up to the company to prioritise its own assets as long as no-one else is affected.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<...were the words I heard uttered by the Heathrow Director (120.4) the other morning when an aircraft, when told that the hold at BIG was 20mins, said, "I don't have fuel for that".... ATC then asked, "are you declaring an emergency" .>>
Well it wouldn't have been on 120.4 because that's the Final Director frequency... However, it probably did occur as it's becoming very common nowadays. It certainly happened yesterday with several a/c when we suddenly went low vis for about 20 minutes! One short-haul guy said "If we go around on this approach we'll be declaring an emergency". Another, inbound from another UK airport only 40 mins away, told me in the BNN hold "Be advised that we are committed to land at Heathrow Airport". Err.. what? None of us really understood what he meant, given that Luton was half the flying time away..
If someone says "we can only hold for five more minutes" and we're in a steady EAT situation there's not much we can do about it other than maybe bring you off the hold a minute or two early and wind you round the approach, but this may not be possible.
It dawned on me yesterday that never once can I recall an American registered airline saying they were short of fuel. They just go round and round the hold until it's time for an approach and that's it.. I suppose I have to say, thinking about it, that we never get problems with continental Europe airlines - Lufthansa, KLM, SAS, Air France, Alitalia, etc, etc. Hey it's just the British airlines who can't plan their fuel properly!!!!!
Well it wouldn't have been on 120.4 because that's the Final Director frequency... However, it probably did occur as it's becoming very common nowadays. It certainly happened yesterday with several a/c when we suddenly went low vis for about 20 minutes! One short-haul guy said "If we go around on this approach we'll be declaring an emergency". Another, inbound from another UK airport only 40 mins away, told me in the BNN hold "Be advised that we are committed to land at Heathrow Airport". Err.. what? None of us really understood what he meant, given that Luton was half the flying time away..
If someone says "we can only hold for five more minutes" and we're in a steady EAT situation there's not much we can do about it other than maybe bring you off the hold a minute or two early and wind you round the approach, but this may not be possible.
It dawned on me yesterday that never once can I recall an American registered airline saying they were short of fuel. They just go round and round the hold until it's time for an approach and that's it.. I suppose I have to say, thinking about it, that we never get problems with continental Europe airlines - Lufthansa, KLM, SAS, Air France, Alitalia, etc, etc. Hey it's just the British airlines who can't plan their fuel properly!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD,
Thanks for the compliment
Being one of the continent, I have a question after reading this thread. I fly into LHR a lot, but I can`t for the life of me remember reading anything about an official minimum holding fuel required when operating into LHR. It is mentioned here more then once, but could someone please give me a reference? Would be interesting.
We started to use a new flightplanning system in our company this week. It basically takes all the "hidden" extra fuel away from us and provides us with the bare legal minimum. The deskdrivers call it "clean fuel policy". It uses the JAR approved method of taking a statistical amount of extra fuel, with a minimum of 5 minutes.
So you see that any reference to an official publication stating a minimum of 20 minutes holding fuel into LHR would be interesting.
Thanks
Thanks for the compliment
Being one of the continent, I have a question after reading this thread. I fly into LHR a lot, but I can`t for the life of me remember reading anything about an official minimum holding fuel required when operating into LHR. It is mentioned here more then once, but could someone please give me a reference? Would be interesting.
We started to use a new flightplanning system in our company this week. It basically takes all the "hidden" extra fuel away from us and provides us with the bare legal minimum. The deskdrivers call it "clean fuel policy". It uses the JAR approved method of taking a statistical amount of extra fuel, with a minimum of 5 minutes.
So you see that any reference to an official publication stating a minimum of 20 minutes holding fuel into LHR would be interesting.
Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Dctr...
<<One short-haul guy said "If we go around on this approach we'll be declaring an emergency". Another, inbound from another UK airport only 40 mins away, told me in the BNN hold "Be advised that we are committed to land at Heathrow Airport". Err.. what? None of us really understood what he meant, given that Luton was half the flying time away.. >>
What he means is that he longer has the fuel to continue to destination (LHR), GA, and then divert.
As you say, whilst he remains in the hold, Luton, Stansted, Gatwich, S'Hampton, B'Mouth (depending on hold) maybe closer. But he is referring to the overall fuel reserves (or rather, lack of them).
Whilst it might be fine in ATC terms to say "you can divert", it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. You are in the queue at LHR, and now go into the queue for LGW - same problem, different airport!
<<If someone says "we can only hold for five more minutes" and we're in a steady EAT situation there's not much we can do about it >>
May I beg to disagree! Please tell him "OK, we'll break all the rules, pull you off early, p*ss everyone off etc." (for which we'll thank you very much), or even more importantly, say "Tough - you will NOT be coming off in the next 5 minutes". The latter is preferable to "er, we'll see", or "I'll try", or "should be OK". We can then divert with more fuel than waiting to the absolute minimum, which not only keeps our stress levels down, but also the hassle we'll give ATC at the airfield we're diverting to...
<<Hey it's just the British airlines who can't plan their fuel properly!>>
Please do NB the great pressures put on us by our Mgmt, especially into LHR as our "home base". The lack of fuel we have is partly down to the professionalism of LHR ATC! There are only 2 ways you will get us to take more fuel:
1. Whinge loudly at your Mgmt, CAA, everyone, that we have not enough. Then the rues will be changed...
2. Ensure more of us divert!
Our managers ONLY understand money - if we keep diverting, with all the ensuing costs, then they'll say "take more fuel". If the present situation, where ATC bend over backwards to get us in, continues, then the Managers will say the Fuel Policy is just fine thank you. Pilots can take more if they wish, but same thinking applies - unless they get into divert or declaring fuel emergency situations from time to time, "Mgmt Fuel" seems OK.
Please NB in BA, LH already but SH soon, we have a new fuel planning system, that basically means we take less fuel. It is more accurate, so the (little) "fat" we had before has gone...
Good debate anyway!
NoD
<<One short-haul guy said "If we go around on this approach we'll be declaring an emergency". Another, inbound from another UK airport only 40 mins away, told me in the BNN hold "Be advised that we are committed to land at Heathrow Airport". Err.. what? None of us really understood what he meant, given that Luton was half the flying time away.. >>
What he means is that he longer has the fuel to continue to destination (LHR), GA, and then divert.
As you say, whilst he remains in the hold, Luton, Stansted, Gatwich, S'Hampton, B'Mouth (depending on hold) maybe closer. But he is referring to the overall fuel reserves (or rather, lack of them).
Whilst it might be fine in ATC terms to say "you can divert", it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. You are in the queue at LHR, and now go into the queue for LGW - same problem, different airport!
<<If someone says "we can only hold for five more minutes" and we're in a steady EAT situation there's not much we can do about it >>
May I beg to disagree! Please tell him "OK, we'll break all the rules, pull you off early, p*ss everyone off etc." (for which we'll thank you very much), or even more importantly, say "Tough - you will NOT be coming off in the next 5 minutes". The latter is preferable to "er, we'll see", or "I'll try", or "should be OK". We can then divert with more fuel than waiting to the absolute minimum, which not only keeps our stress levels down, but also the hassle we'll give ATC at the airfield we're diverting to...
<<Hey it's just the British airlines who can't plan their fuel properly!>>
Please do NB the great pressures put on us by our Mgmt, especially into LHR as our "home base". The lack of fuel we have is partly down to the professionalism of LHR ATC! There are only 2 ways you will get us to take more fuel:
1. Whinge loudly at your Mgmt, CAA, everyone, that we have not enough. Then the rues will be changed...
2. Ensure more of us divert!
Our managers ONLY understand money - if we keep diverting, with all the ensuing costs, then they'll say "take more fuel". If the present situation, where ATC bend over backwards to get us in, continues, then the Managers will say the Fuel Policy is just fine thank you. Pilots can take more if they wish, but same thinking applies - unless they get into divert or declaring fuel emergency situations from time to time, "Mgmt Fuel" seems OK.
Please NB in BA, LH already but SH soon, we have a new fuel planning system, that basically means we take less fuel. It is more accurate, so the (little) "fat" we had before has gone...
Good debate anyway!
NoD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD
I would like to humbly agree with you and the same argument could be applied to the debate on runways. LHR have simply done too good a job over the years at getting the traffic in, no matter what the conditions are and that takes all the pressure of other people to do what they should do; Managers over fuel and Govenment over runways. That is why we now find ourselves with you under fuel pressure and us under runway pressure.
Somehow it feels like WE have failed if we lose somebody to LGW or if the landing rate drops below 40 due to wind. Many take on more than they should in order to fulfil your needs. It is very well intentioned but I believe acts contrary to the longterm common good.
Point 4
I would like to humbly agree with you and the same argument could be applied to the debate on runways. LHR have simply done too good a job over the years at getting the traffic in, no matter what the conditions are and that takes all the pressure of other people to do what they should do; Managers over fuel and Govenment over runways. That is why we now find ourselves with you under fuel pressure and us under runway pressure.
Somehow it feels like WE have failed if we lose somebody to LGW or if the landing rate drops below 40 due to wind. Many take on more than they should in order to fulfil your needs. It is very well intentioned but I believe acts contrary to the longterm common good.
Point 4
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Nigel’s last comment – we, (and especially LHR ATC), are victims of our own success. I’ve read a few comments on this thread where people have said they always carry a bit of “Mike Kilo” fuel to ensure they’ll arrive with enough fuel to hold. (“Mike Kilo” fuel = a tonne or two for Mum and the Kids.)
Your company beancounters won’t – and I’m sure don’t – thank you for this company mindedness. They can’t quantify any tension or stress you might feel as you’re told to maintain the hold when the fuel quantity is slipping inexorably towards minimum divert fuel. All they see is the bottom line – that’s what they’re paid to see – and if you do the sums yourself, you can see where they’re coming from.
If long haul company ‘A’ has five flights a day into Heathrow and every pilot carries a couple of tonnes for ‘M&K’, those five aeroplanes are each going to burn (round figures – it’ll vary for type and sector distance) between 1 and 1.5 tonnes of extra fuel every day of the year. For five flights a day, that becomes upwards of 7 to 8 tonnes a day, which translates into almost 3,000 tonnes a year – just for their operation into one port. Multiply that into the number of ports Big Airlines operates to and the figures become truly staggering.
Let’s halve that figure to be conservative and call it 1,500 tonnes of wasted fuel per annum into one port. (Remember, the accountants couldn’t care a toss whether you, the operator, sat fat, dumb and happy, fat for fuel on your approach into LHR or on the edge of your seat worried witless whether you can make it in on the smell of an oily rag, so that doesn’t come into the argument.)
If we stick with the 1,500 tonnes a year figure, how many diversions can they ‘afford’ to suffer a year before carrying the extra fuel every day becomes economical? Even after they factor in landing and handling charges at the diversion field as well as the disruption to the flight schedule and p-one-ssed off pax, it’s still going to take a considerable number of diversions before they will cost the company more than that 1,500 (or more) tonnes of unnecessarily burnt fuel per annum. (The figures would probably not be all that dissimilar for a short haul operator with 20 or 30 flights a day into LHR. The cost of carrying the extra weight of fuel would be less per flight, but the number of flights would drag the final figure up to something similar to the long haul figure.)
So what’s the point of my writing this? It’s simple. Every time you, the line pilot, bend the rules or allow commercial pressures to become a factor in when you’re going to ‘pull the proverbial pin’ and go to your alternate, you’re skewing the bottom line in favour of the beancounter or ‘unrealistic fuel Nazi’ chief pilot who says you can get away with carrying minimum fuel. If diversions begin to cost more than the extra fuel carried, company policy changes. (Let me stress here that I’m not advocating some half-baked spoiling operation in saying this, because the fact is, in my company at least, the minimum fuel policy works and works well.)
I’ve said it earlier on this thread – unless the forecast dictates otherwise, (and my company is very realistic about this when the weather forecast is bad), I’m a minimum fuel man, ’coz that’s what the owners of my particular train set have asked me to be, and I can see where they’re coming from and understand that they’re there to make a buck, which keeps me in work. But they understand that I don’t bend the rules if I’m delayed for any reason at destination. In my humble opinion, any pilot who does allow himself to be coerced into making fuel decisions that he feels uncomfortable with is painting himself into a corner where at best, he’s putting his licence at risk. At worst, he could be putting his own and his trusting passengers' lives in grave danger.
If there’s anyone out there who believes his company will back him to the hilt should he be prosecuted for bending or breaking a law in being ‘company-minded’ and trying to get in illegally ‘for the company good’, I’ve got a bridge for sale. One owner, nice harbourside position…
Edited for arithmetic and *** typos!
Your company beancounters won’t – and I’m sure don’t – thank you for this company mindedness. They can’t quantify any tension or stress you might feel as you’re told to maintain the hold when the fuel quantity is slipping inexorably towards minimum divert fuel. All they see is the bottom line – that’s what they’re paid to see – and if you do the sums yourself, you can see where they’re coming from.
If long haul company ‘A’ has five flights a day into Heathrow and every pilot carries a couple of tonnes for ‘M&K’, those five aeroplanes are each going to burn (round figures – it’ll vary for type and sector distance) between 1 and 1.5 tonnes of extra fuel every day of the year. For five flights a day, that becomes upwards of 7 to 8 tonnes a day, which translates into almost 3,000 tonnes a year – just for their operation into one port. Multiply that into the number of ports Big Airlines operates to and the figures become truly staggering.
Let’s halve that figure to be conservative and call it 1,500 tonnes of wasted fuel per annum into one port. (Remember, the accountants couldn’t care a toss whether you, the operator, sat fat, dumb and happy, fat for fuel on your approach into LHR or on the edge of your seat worried witless whether you can make it in on the smell of an oily rag, so that doesn’t come into the argument.)
If we stick with the 1,500 tonnes a year figure, how many diversions can they ‘afford’ to suffer a year before carrying the extra fuel every day becomes economical? Even after they factor in landing and handling charges at the diversion field as well as the disruption to the flight schedule and p-one-ssed off pax, it’s still going to take a considerable number of diversions before they will cost the company more than that 1,500 (or more) tonnes of unnecessarily burnt fuel per annum. (The figures would probably not be all that dissimilar for a short haul operator with 20 or 30 flights a day into LHR. The cost of carrying the extra weight of fuel would be less per flight, but the number of flights would drag the final figure up to something similar to the long haul figure.)
So what’s the point of my writing this? It’s simple. Every time you, the line pilot, bend the rules or allow commercial pressures to become a factor in when you’re going to ‘pull the proverbial pin’ and go to your alternate, you’re skewing the bottom line in favour of the beancounter or ‘unrealistic fuel Nazi’ chief pilot who says you can get away with carrying minimum fuel. If diversions begin to cost more than the extra fuel carried, company policy changes. (Let me stress here that I’m not advocating some half-baked spoiling operation in saying this, because the fact is, in my company at least, the minimum fuel policy works and works well.)
I’ve said it earlier on this thread – unless the forecast dictates otherwise, (and my company is very realistic about this when the weather forecast is bad), I’m a minimum fuel man, ’coz that’s what the owners of my particular train set have asked me to be, and I can see where they’re coming from and understand that they’re there to make a buck, which keeps me in work. But they understand that I don’t bend the rules if I’m delayed for any reason at destination. In my humble opinion, any pilot who does allow himself to be coerced into making fuel decisions that he feels uncomfortable with is painting himself into a corner where at best, he’s putting his licence at risk. At worst, he could be putting his own and his trusting passengers' lives in grave danger.
If there’s anyone out there who believes his company will back him to the hilt should he be prosecuted for bending or breaking a law in being ‘company-minded’ and trying to get in illegally ‘for the company good’, I’ve got a bridge for sale. One owner, nice harbourside position…
Edited for arithmetic and *** typos!
Last edited by Wiley; 13th Oct 2002 at 13:38.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have all the airlines flying Seattle produced planes now checked their pumps? If not. how many are arriving at destination with such low fuel levels that other elements of safety are going to be called into question?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Seat 0a and any other interested non-UK operators, the document that you need to lay your hands on is from the Civil Aviation Authority Flight Operations Department known as Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) number 39/1998 and can be obtained either from the UK AIP or downloaded from the recently upgraded NATS AIS website after registering. The gist of the text is that you are expected to be able to hold for 20 minutes without throwing your toys out of the cot, and that when you divert to LGW you don’t expect a straight line to a 5 mile final the moment you make the request.
Having spoken to cousin Nigel about this in the past it is clear that Big do not adhere to the guidance given in this AIC as a matter of policy. Their interpretation appears to be that contingency fuel is there for use as holding fuel and no extra is added. I understand from him that they still have a Captain’s ladder of who takes how much, although this is specifically censured by the Authority.
From a personal standpoint I can see little advantage in carrying less than the advised minimum fuel into major hubs, like LHR and LGW where official guidance has been provided. Many operators have a company reserve figure added into the planned fuel for example (to the best of my knowledge) Transavia add about 900kgs for any delays that might be experienced. The argument about fuel being burnt to carry extra fuel is a well hackneyed one, which although may come to a significant figure if imported from Singapore, adds up to a couple of drops on a extra tonne from MUC for instance. The fuel is still there for the next sector if you didn’t use it and if you did use it then you needed it! There are many controllers who find it difficult to understand how you can take off from Manchester and be short of fuel by the time you reach BNN! It is in short a false economy. For a company like Big, whose Ayling management policy is costing them £45,600 per hour in interest, I find this argument facile. I suggest it is the result of a parochial and introspective culture. One day one of your statistical possibilities is going to turn round and bite you on the tail.
For the Authority, Mr Heathrow Director and the other service providers I strongly suggest that the policy of gentlemen’s reminders and friendly words of advice has failed to communicate the message. This will need to be promulgated as a Class A notam, so that operators have no choice but to stand up and take notice. We cannot allow the beancounters to mandate public transport aeroplanes operating into major terminals on critically low fuel states. The time has come for the establishment to weigh in on the side of prudence and responsibility.
Having spoken to cousin Nigel about this in the past it is clear that Big do not adhere to the guidance given in this AIC as a matter of policy. Their interpretation appears to be that contingency fuel is there for use as holding fuel and no extra is added. I understand from him that they still have a Captain’s ladder of who takes how much, although this is specifically censured by the Authority.
From a personal standpoint I can see little advantage in carrying less than the advised minimum fuel into major hubs, like LHR and LGW where official guidance has been provided. Many operators have a company reserve figure added into the planned fuel for example (to the best of my knowledge) Transavia add about 900kgs for any delays that might be experienced. The argument about fuel being burnt to carry extra fuel is a well hackneyed one, which although may come to a significant figure if imported from Singapore, adds up to a couple of drops on a extra tonne from MUC for instance. The fuel is still there for the next sector if you didn’t use it and if you did use it then you needed it! There are many controllers who find it difficult to understand how you can take off from Manchester and be short of fuel by the time you reach BNN! It is in short a false economy. For a company like Big, whose Ayling management policy is costing them £45,600 per hour in interest, I find this argument facile. I suggest it is the result of a parochial and introspective culture. One day one of your statistical possibilities is going to turn round and bite you on the tail.
For the Authority, Mr Heathrow Director and the other service providers I strongly suggest that the policy of gentlemen’s reminders and friendly words of advice has failed to communicate the message. This will need to be promulgated as a Class A notam, so that operators have no choice but to stand up and take notice. We cannot allow the beancounters to mandate public transport aeroplanes operating into major terminals on critically low fuel states. The time has come for the establishment to weigh in on the side of prudence and responsibility.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt H Peacock
The requirement for the extra 20 minutes holding fuel WAS a class A notam some years ago, from 'round about 1990 or so.
'Tis my opinion that, if ANY flight is dispatched to LHR/LGW without at LEAST this amount of extra fuel, the respective company needs to have their landing slots cancelled...period.
Otherwise, it will one day be "Avianca Colombia" time, somewhere in the London suberbs...
The requirement for the extra 20 minutes holding fuel WAS a class A notam some years ago, from 'round about 1990 or so.
'Tis my opinion that, if ANY flight is dispatched to LHR/LGW without at LEAST this amount of extra fuel, the respective company needs to have their landing slots cancelled...period.
Otherwise, it will one day be "Avianca Colombia" time, somewhere in the London suberbs...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested in the replies to sharpshot's point.
If all calculations are shaved to the bone, can the Boeing drivers then use the fuel which is supposed to be covering the fuel pumps to get to the threshold if all else fails.
If so do they or their companies then use this fuel as part of their reserves?
If not, why not.
If all calculations are shaved to the bone, can the Boeing drivers then use the fuel which is supposed to be covering the fuel pumps to get to the threshold if all else fails.
If so do they or their companies then use this fuel as part of their reserves?
If not, why not.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt HP
As you said, we've been here b4! Everytime this gets going, I have to find that damn AIC and read it again... I have now dug it out, for the first time since we last conversed.
1. Just confirm you mean 36/1998 (not 39/1998 as you stated)
2. I am sorry, but I cannot see it says you need 20mins holding fuel + normal reserves.
3. The only ref to "20mins" is a clarification of what "No delay expected" means.
4. It actually states very clearly (para 6) what fuel you should plan to arrive overhead with. No mention of ANY allowance for holding (apart from the 30mins "final reserve").
5. Your <<it is clear that Big do not adhere to the guidance given in this AIC as a matter of policy>>. In fact Bigs fuel policy adheres exactly to para 6, but with the addition of "contingency". I am sure you are familiar with this - Big now has various types of contingency (5%, 15mins, 3% with ERA etc.), and something called "statistical contingency" that is so complicated that I cannot understand it... but it is still "some" extra fuel.
6. Big will normally use the contingency as "holding fuel" (say 15mins). We then have the ability to "commit" to LHR (provided Capt is happy and weather OK etc.) by binning the "diversion" element. This will invariably add another 30mins+. So provided the conditions are met to "commit", a BA aircraft will PLAN to arrive at LHR with 45mins holding fuel.
7. If the weather is outside limits for committing, then almost every Capt would be uploading extra fuel.
8. After much internal discussion, our rules were clarified to say that if the "route stats" (route and time of day) indicate that it is likely that the extra burn used historically for that route exceed contingency, then this difference should also be loaded...
Please do correct me if I have missed something in this AIC (such as page 2).
NoD
As you said, we've been here b4! Everytime this gets going, I have to find that damn AIC and read it again... I have now dug it out, for the first time since we last conversed.
1. Just confirm you mean 36/1998 (not 39/1998 as you stated)
2. I am sorry, but I cannot see it says you need 20mins holding fuel + normal reserves.
3. The only ref to "20mins" is a clarification of what "No delay expected" means.
4. It actually states very clearly (para 6) what fuel you should plan to arrive overhead with. No mention of ANY allowance for holding (apart from the 30mins "final reserve").
5. Your <<it is clear that Big do not adhere to the guidance given in this AIC as a matter of policy>>. In fact Bigs fuel policy adheres exactly to para 6, but with the addition of "contingency". I am sure you are familiar with this - Big now has various types of contingency (5%, 15mins, 3% with ERA etc.), and something called "statistical contingency" that is so complicated that I cannot understand it... but it is still "some" extra fuel.
6. Big will normally use the contingency as "holding fuel" (say 15mins). We then have the ability to "commit" to LHR (provided Capt is happy and weather OK etc.) by binning the "diversion" element. This will invariably add another 30mins+. So provided the conditions are met to "commit", a BA aircraft will PLAN to arrive at LHR with 45mins holding fuel.
7. If the weather is outside limits for committing, then almost every Capt would be uploading extra fuel.
8. After much internal discussion, our rules were clarified to say that if the "route stats" (route and time of day) indicate that it is likely that the extra burn used historically for that route exceed contingency, then this difference should also be loaded...
Please do correct me if I have missed something in this AIC (such as page 2).
NoD
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The relevant AIC is indeed AIC 36/1998 and is a typo for which I apologise unreservedly. As we have been here before I also apologise for lengthy quotes from official documents, but the point has to be made.
You have made clear, and my chats over the rim of a pint glass with cousin Nigel have established, your policy is that before dispatch, with statistical information available to you to show that a particular route/aeroplane combination between city pairs historically results in an average increased burn, you will not upload that additional fuel as required to by JAR-OPS and CAA recent explicit guidance, to the extent that planned contingency fuel covers the increase. In other words you do not consider that contingency fuel is loaded to cover ‘unforeseen circumstances etc…’ but will use it for purposes that you could reasonably be expected to encounter before dispatch.
If your contingency is 5% from a suitable en-route alternate then this figure could be quite small, and assuming the flight goes well and you don’t use it, it is still unlikely to result in 20 minutes holding capability. Under the provisos of App 1 JAR–OPS PtD 1.375(b) you may use your alternate fuel for holding, that is the choice of the commander as he sees fit, although you should be aware of the caution that has been expressed by supervisors at LHR over the short term availability of the alternate runway for arrivals even in an emergency. I would imagine that you would choose carefully the conditions under which you are prepared to attempt this.
The Authority’s view of these circumstances is
CAA SRG SOC 5.1.1
… Because contingency fuel is carried for events that cannot be foreseen, its use should not be planned before departure to compensate for needs that can reasonably be identified as likely to result in an increased fuel burn.
CAA SRG SOC 5.1.1
4.3.3 AIC 36/1999 recommends that adequate reserves of fuel should be carried when intending to land in the UK at certain airfields where delays should be expected at times when the associated terminal areas will be busy. This AIC had been re-issued because it again became apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve fuel remaining. Concern remains that this message has still not been acted upon to the extent envisaged; in late September 2000 one controller dealt with three fuel shortage PAN calls in one shift.
4.3.4 Recommendation 2. Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programmes or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance of the guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is a reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
I don’t think there is much room for debate here, to ignore the guidance given is questionable to say the very least and could well compromise the Air Operators Certificate.
Short of promulgating a Class A notam requiring operators to carry holding fuel, I am satisfied that the CAA and the NATS have done everything that can reasonably expected of them to give guidance on the extent of anticipated delays. I feel that we should all be gracious enough to pay them the professional courtesy of taking heed in our planning. Moreover you should be aware that the UK legislation is based upon JAR and CAA regulations issued under the umbrella of the UK AIP (including AIC’s). Since they issued your ATPL and not some suit in the accounts dept at Big, you should consider wisely before discounting their advice.
You have made clear, and my chats over the rim of a pint glass with cousin Nigel have established, your policy is that before dispatch, with statistical information available to you to show that a particular route/aeroplane combination between city pairs historically results in an average increased burn, you will not upload that additional fuel as required to by JAR-OPS and CAA recent explicit guidance, to the extent that planned contingency fuel covers the increase. In other words you do not consider that contingency fuel is loaded to cover ‘unforeseen circumstances etc…’ but will use it for purposes that you could reasonably be expected to encounter before dispatch.
If your contingency is 5% from a suitable en-route alternate then this figure could be quite small, and assuming the flight goes well and you don’t use it, it is still unlikely to result in 20 minutes holding capability. Under the provisos of App 1 JAR–OPS PtD 1.375(b) you may use your alternate fuel for holding, that is the choice of the commander as he sees fit, although you should be aware of the caution that has been expressed by supervisors at LHR over the short term availability of the alternate runway for arrivals even in an emergency. I would imagine that you would choose carefully the conditions under which you are prepared to attempt this.
The Authority’s view of these circumstances is
CAA SRG SOC 5.1.1
… Because contingency fuel is carried for events that cannot be foreseen, its use should not be planned before departure to compensate for needs that can reasonably be identified as likely to result in an increased fuel burn.
CAA SRG SOC 5.1.1
4.3.3 AIC 36/1999 recommends that adequate reserves of fuel should be carried when intending to land in the UK at certain airfields where delays should be expected at times when the associated terminal areas will be busy. This AIC had been re-issued because it again became apparent that too many aeroplanes continued to arrive in the vicinity of their planned destination with little more than Alternate and Final Reserve fuel remaining. Concern remains that this message has still not been acted upon to the extent envisaged; in late September 2000 one controller dealt with three fuel shortage PAN calls in one shift.
4.3.4 Recommendation 2. Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programmes or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance of the guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is a reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
I don’t think there is much room for debate here, to ignore the guidance given is questionable to say the very least and could well compromise the Air Operators Certificate.
Short of promulgating a Class A notam requiring operators to carry holding fuel, I am satisfied that the CAA and the NATS have done everything that can reasonably expected of them to give guidance on the extent of anticipated delays. I feel that we should all be gracious enough to pay them the professional courtesy of taking heed in our planning. Moreover you should be aware that the UK legislation is based upon JAR and CAA regulations issued under the umbrella of the UK AIP (including AIC’s). Since they issued your ATPL and not some suit in the accounts dept at Big, you should consider wisely before discounting their advice.
Last edited by Capt H Peacock; 14th Oct 2002 at 13:46.
I seem lucky enough to work for an airline (at LHR) who never put pressure on Captains about fuel and who never question the fuel decisions of any of thier crews. When I did my command course, one of the trainers, now retired (Jenx, if you are reading this, thanks a lot) gave me the following advice. "Regardless of the what the company may want you to do, never load less fuel than you personally feel comfortable with." Any airline that creates an environment which means that skippers feel they shouldn't follow that advice is treading a dangerous path.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: my house
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little " ...we are short of fuel.. " story for you from a London tma atc'er point of view.
About 3 years ago ended up working an EGPF - EGKK ferry flight operated by a foreign holiday airline that had to divert to EGSS, lets give it the callsign Empty Tank 36F.
Said plane had arrived at Willo to be told 5 -10 mins delay which registered the reply not enough fuel, want to divert to Stansted.
When I got the aircraft there were a couple of very anxious enquiries about delays and track miles, which were duly passed. When request for very early descent was asked , I replied that would be in X miles due to traffic 1000ft below.
Imagine my surprise when the plane starts descending of its own volition , acknowledged as their own action in later paperwork, requiring extreme avoiding action against 2 other aircraft, already given as traffic and acknowledged by Empty Tank 36F.
Me all a very big quiver starts to ask ET36F if it has a problem to get the reply we need to land at the earliest opportunity. After an ILS change at EGSS, landing accomodated and "..another happy ending.", despite a couple of RYR's been given a spin at Lorel, unthinkable 3 years ago !!
Not at one stage " Pan/Mayday ".
Allegedly, a rather large volume was tossed in the way of the crew by caa, and rightly so.
Unconfirmed reports that I was party to suggest that the aircraft landed with not enough fuel to complete half a go-around
Sitting in my comfortable ATCC it's easy to say this , but if this does change the mind of any crew thinking of cutting a fuel corner, these guys sounded more scared than the other maydays I have encountered.
Put a Full tiger in your tank !
About 3 years ago ended up working an EGPF - EGKK ferry flight operated by a foreign holiday airline that had to divert to EGSS, lets give it the callsign Empty Tank 36F.
Said plane had arrived at Willo to be told 5 -10 mins delay which registered the reply not enough fuel, want to divert to Stansted.
When I got the aircraft there were a couple of very anxious enquiries about delays and track miles, which were duly passed. When request for very early descent was asked , I replied that would be in X miles due to traffic 1000ft below.
Imagine my surprise when the plane starts descending of its own volition , acknowledged as their own action in later paperwork, requiring extreme avoiding action against 2 other aircraft, already given as traffic and acknowledged by Empty Tank 36F.
Me all a very big quiver starts to ask ET36F if it has a problem to get the reply we need to land at the earliest opportunity. After an ILS change at EGSS, landing accomodated and "..another happy ending.", despite a couple of RYR's been given a spin at Lorel, unthinkable 3 years ago !!
Not at one stage " Pan/Mayday ".
Allegedly, a rather large volume was tossed in the way of the crew by caa, and rightly so.
Unconfirmed reports that I was party to suggest that the aircraft landed with not enough fuel to complete half a go-around
Sitting in my comfortable ATCC it's easy to say this , but if this does change the mind of any crew thinking of cutting a fuel corner, these guys sounded more scared than the other maydays I have encountered.
Put a Full tiger in your tank !
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt HP
Thank for your extensive reply.
The CAA SRG references you quote are very interesting! IMHO they completely alter the original AIC... and as you say, are not compatible with BA's fuel policy.
There is a chance I will shortly undergo a course where my responsilbilty towards such matters is somewhat more than at present. Not having a clue what CAA SRG SOC's are, or where I can find them, I can see some research coming on, and some questions being asked if such course occurs.
Between all the bickering on other threads, one's such as these increase all our knowledge levels, and particularly different areas' perceptions.
Thanks again...
NoD
Thank for your extensive reply.
The CAA SRG references you quote are very interesting! IMHO they completely alter the original AIC... and as you say, are not compatible with BA's fuel policy.
There is a chance I will shortly undergo a course where my responsilbilty towards such matters is somewhat more than at present. Not having a clue what CAA SRG SOC's are, or where I can find them, I can see some research coming on, and some questions being asked if such course occurs.
Between all the bickering on other threads, one's such as these increase all our knowledge levels, and particularly different areas' perceptions.
Thanks again...
NoD
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. P;
Agree with the intent of most of what you say, but the the quote from SOC 5.1.1 <<(acting in accordance of the guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) >> rather passes the buck back to the companies. In my company, CAA FOIs fly the line regularly and one of the purposes is to make sure that the ops. manuals are doing the job. If the flight manual fuel policy is in opposition to what the CAA SRG would want, then they should not approve it. As it stands, they not only approve it - but test it regularly on the line, so Captains are exhorted to stick to flt. manual policy on the grounds that it is safe and commercially sound as approved and tested by the Authority. I personally think my company's current fuel policy is sound - provided the decision making process which goes with it is intelligent.
Nigel;
Good luck with the course: when I did the same (I think our pay chits are sent from the same address) the last advice from the check Captain before signing me off was to start off by taking plenty of fuel. It was comforting to know that there was no additional fuel policy pressure in addition to the weight of a new command. And there was no pressure on this issue subsequently, save a few reminders of the (CAA approved and certified) company fuel policy.
Agree with the intent of most of what you say, but the the quote from SOC 5.1.1 <<(acting in accordance of the guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) >> rather passes the buck back to the companies. In my company, CAA FOIs fly the line regularly and one of the purposes is to make sure that the ops. manuals are doing the job. If the flight manual fuel policy is in opposition to what the CAA SRG would want, then they should not approve it. As it stands, they not only approve it - but test it regularly on the line, so Captains are exhorted to stick to flt. manual policy on the grounds that it is safe and commercially sound as approved and tested by the Authority. I personally think my company's current fuel policy is sound - provided the decision making process which goes with it is intelligent.
Nigel;
Good luck with the course: when I did the same (I think our pay chits are sent from the same address) the last advice from the check Captain before signing me off was to start off by taking plenty of fuel. It was comforting to know that there was no additional fuel policy pressure in addition to the weight of a new command. And there was no pressure on this issue subsequently, save a few reminders of the (CAA approved and certified) company fuel policy.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, from many of the comments here, it would indeed appear that the particular problem of "minimal fuel" is mainly the mainstay of certain British operators. Why is this?
Surely, those that operate into LHR/LGW on a very regular basis certainly KNOW the problems they face...so why do they continue to carry only minimum fuel?
Seems they should have learned hard lessons by now...
Or, could it possibly be...don't confuse us with the facts, our minds are made up?
Surely, those that operate into LHR/LGW on a very regular basis certainly KNOW the problems they face...so why do they continue to carry only minimum fuel?
Seems they should have learned hard lessons by now...
Or, could it possibly be...don't confuse us with the facts, our minds are made up?