No fuel to go-around
As I understand it you can burn your diversion fuel flying towards your destination if it fullfils a minimum criteria of vis minima, two runways available + no expected delays
The requirements are:
At your destination aerodrome an EAT has been issued, or the delay is known or no significant delay is expected (<20mins)
You must be able to complete an approach in the event of any forecast weather deterioration in conjunction with a single failure of groung OR airbourne equipment that would downgrade the landing capability of the aircraft.
The commander has taken into account the traffic and operarational conditions at the destination, on the route to the alternate and at the alternate when deciding to land at the destination or divert so as to land with not less than final reserve.
As I said in a earlier post this gives the skipper a good deal of flexibility when deciding how to use the remaining fuel and he/she can use thier own judgement as to what is a good idea and what is not which I rather like.
It seems to me that most of these decisions can really only be made once you are at your destination or very close to it. The second regulation is really the only one that you can look at in advance, the other two need up to the minute information about what is going on at the time. If you are some way from your destination and you continue knowing that you are going to arrive without the ability to divert you are really backing yourself into a corner and may start to run out of options very rapidly.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears nobody feels experienced enough or qualified enough to comment on the boeing fuel pump directive on fuel planning.
I am sure a large number of SLF would feel better if a response to this new concern was addressed by the flight deck forum.
A lack of response could be considered a distain of non commercial pilots, but more likely to be considered a lack of awareness.
I await the blast.
I am sure a large number of SLF would feel better if a response to this new concern was addressed by the flight deck forum.
A lack of response could be considered a distain of non commercial pilots, but more likely to be considered a lack of awareness.
I await the blast.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluskis
According to the latest issue of Aviation Week, sufficient fuel must be kept in tanks equipped with the affected Crane Hydro-Aire pumps to keep them submerged. This fuel cannot be used in flight nor can it be planned to be used during preflight planning.
It increases UNusuable fuel by 1000 pounds in the 737 and 757's and by 3000 to 7000 pounds for 747's. 747-400's are prohibited from using the optional horizontal tail tank, until pumps are inspected/replaced.
According to the latest issue of Aviation Week, sufficient fuel must be kept in tanks equipped with the affected Crane Hydro-Aire pumps to keep them submerged. This fuel cannot be used in flight nor can it be planned to be used during preflight planning.
It increases UNusuable fuel by 1000 pounds in the 737 and 757's and by 3000 to 7000 pounds for 747's. 747-400's are prohibited from using the optional horizontal tail tank, until pumps are inspected/replaced.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluskis
The reason that nobody has commented on the fuel pump issue is that it has no relevance to this thread. As 411A states, the fuel required to keep the pumps covered is treated as unusable fuel. The weight of this fuel is added to the ZFW before any flight planning takes place. On some of the longer sectors this might mean leaving some payload behind. However, on some sectors such as the West Coast US to LHR we actually arrive with more fuel than usual due to the CWT minimum fuel requirements.
Airclues
The reason that nobody has commented on the fuel pump issue is that it has no relevance to this thread. As 411A states, the fuel required to keep the pumps covered is treated as unusable fuel. The weight of this fuel is added to the ZFW before any flight planning takes place. On some of the longer sectors this might mean leaving some payload behind. However, on some sectors such as the West Coast US to LHR we actually arrive with more fuel than usual due to the CWT minimum fuel requirements.
Airclues
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a: <<Clearly, his experience with a quality North American operator, and his many operations into LHR, speak volumes about the fallacy of uplifting only minimum flight plan fuel>>
How so?
Luckily, my employer recommends minimum fuel to be carried only when appropriate. All they ask is that you have a sound and intelligently thought out reason for carriage of "extra" (eg. holding) fuel - in which case it is against stated policy not to carry it. A "tonne for Mum" is unprofessional without a valid reason, just as flight plan fuel alone is inappropriate when the information indicates you will need more. I do agree, however, that contingency should not be planned on being used. Perhaps the word "commit" is unhelpful - most stacks at LHR give you a runway nearer than the LHR strips, so you are never literally committed. It just means you cannot make a low approach and go around *AND* divert to *planned* diversion airfield - but other plans do exist (if they don't, you *are* a mayday). My company, I am pleased to report, has *never* pressured me to take less fuel than I would be happy with (quite the contrary, in fact, after my final command check the checker all but instructed me to take loads of extra fuel!). Weather modelling and traffic forecasting is more exact than it used to be and allows a more accurate and intelligent approach than before. It just isn't right or clever to blindly take fuel 100% of the time for the 0.1% of the time (or whatever) when reality is far removed from prediction. You must, though, remain aware and put plan B into operation before you compromise safety. Staying safe and staying legal and using your brain is what you are paid for as a professional airman, IMO.
And will you *please* do something about your pathetic, sneering, demeaning attitude - all this "Superior Airways" stuff etc. that you ooze is just a transparent attempt to pick a fight when everyone else seems to manage an intelligent debate. The irony is that it makes *you* look aloof and supercilious.
Flanker: <<The legal/company minimum fuel is just that - the minimum. I'd leave rather than work for a company that really pressurised me to take less fuel than I as Captain felt satisfied with. >> I agree - and so would I. Fortunately, my company doesn't, so I don't have to.
Capt. P: I am very familiar with all the documents you mention. I have copies of most of them at home. The SOC you mention makes several general recommendations - all of which are pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy (some parts are practically quotes). Read especially the paragraphs which differentiate the days when holding is likely and those when it is not: cf. paras 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. Note also para. 4.3.5 (which is relevant to the thust of this thread) which finishes "If deciding not to divert, the commander can use Alternate Fuel together with any unused portion of Contingency Fuel to extend the length of time he may be required to hold before commencing his approach at his planned destination.".
But it is not done thoughtlessly, and some comments here have given at least one contributor the impression that some operators are imposing draconian dictats which are resulting in dangerously low levels of fuel. This is just not the case in my experience, and certainly not with my company. Lets keep it calm, reasoned and real shall we, people?
How so?
Luckily, my employer recommends minimum fuel to be carried only when appropriate. All they ask is that you have a sound and intelligently thought out reason for carriage of "extra" (eg. holding) fuel - in which case it is against stated policy not to carry it. A "tonne for Mum" is unprofessional without a valid reason, just as flight plan fuel alone is inappropriate when the information indicates you will need more. I do agree, however, that contingency should not be planned on being used. Perhaps the word "commit" is unhelpful - most stacks at LHR give you a runway nearer than the LHR strips, so you are never literally committed. It just means you cannot make a low approach and go around *AND* divert to *planned* diversion airfield - but other plans do exist (if they don't, you *are* a mayday). My company, I am pleased to report, has *never* pressured me to take less fuel than I would be happy with (quite the contrary, in fact, after my final command check the checker all but instructed me to take loads of extra fuel!). Weather modelling and traffic forecasting is more exact than it used to be and allows a more accurate and intelligent approach than before. It just isn't right or clever to blindly take fuel 100% of the time for the 0.1% of the time (or whatever) when reality is far removed from prediction. You must, though, remain aware and put plan B into operation before you compromise safety. Staying safe and staying legal and using your brain is what you are paid for as a professional airman, IMO.
And will you *please* do something about your pathetic, sneering, demeaning attitude - all this "Superior Airways" stuff etc. that you ooze is just a transparent attempt to pick a fight when everyone else seems to manage an intelligent debate. The irony is that it makes *you* look aloof and supercilious.
Flanker: <<The legal/company minimum fuel is just that - the minimum. I'd leave rather than work for a company that really pressurised me to take less fuel than I as Captain felt satisfied with. >> I agree - and so would I. Fortunately, my company doesn't, so I don't have to.
Capt. P: I am very familiar with all the documents you mention. I have copies of most of them at home. The SOC you mention makes several general recommendations - all of which are pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy (some parts are practically quotes). Read especially the paragraphs which differentiate the days when holding is likely and those when it is not: cf. paras 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. Note also para. 4.3.5 (which is relevant to the thust of this thread) which finishes "If deciding not to divert, the commander can use Alternate Fuel together with any unused portion of Contingency Fuel to extend the length of time he may be required to hold before commencing his approach at his planned destination.".
But it is not done thoughtlessly, and some comments here have given at least one contributor the impression that some operators are imposing draconian dictats which are resulting in dangerously low levels of fuel. This is just not the case in my experience, and certainly not with my company. Lets keep it calm, reasoned and real shall we, people?
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Brunei
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a few of you have read the late Arthur Whitlock's autobiography "Behind the Cockpit Door". In the book is a cartoon which has the caption
"The safest pilot, is one who has in the past experienced considerable fear and will go to almost any lengths to avoid experiencing it again !"
Now stop and ask yourself 3 questions,
1. "How far do you think that Captain had sucked his seat cushion up his rectal orifice during that situation ?"
2. "Do you really think he will ever let that situation happen again ?"
3. "When he gets another memo from his company urging carrying minimum fuel loads or the like, what do you think he is going to do with it ?
Frankly, I think the man is a safer pilot because of it.
There are two types of pilots out there;
those who have experienced the situation,
and those who are going to.
Which one are you ?
"The safest pilot, is one who has in the past experienced considerable fear and will go to almost any lengths to avoid experiencing it again !"
Now stop and ask yourself 3 questions,
1. "How far do you think that Captain had sucked his seat cushion up his rectal orifice during that situation ?"
2. "Do you really think he will ever let that situation happen again ?"
3. "When he gets another memo from his company urging carrying minimum fuel loads or the like, what do you think he is going to do with it ?
Frankly, I think the man is a safer pilot because of it.
There are two types of pilots out there;
those who have experienced the situation,
and those who are going to.
Which one are you ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA Safety Regulation Group has but one function, and that is to improve flight safety. I think most people have no difficulty in deducing the thrust of this Special Objective Check. The Authority is trying to create an environment where aircraft using one of the busiest international airports in the World, do not arrive in a position where the routinely experienced levels of traffic result in critically low fuel states over the city of London.
Given that very simple and sensible message, I cannot understand why anyone would want to refute or subvert the intentions of the SRG. If their aim is simply to avoid the carriage cost of ‘unnecessary fuel’ I would be extremely disappointed in the value judgements of the individuals involved. As I mentioned earlier, the penalties involved are relatively small unless we’re talking ultra long haul, and for short haul is such a ridiculously small cost as to be negligible. The whole thing is an accounting exercise and I would suggest that an operator that has to result to such penny pinching has far greater things to worry about.
If it’s quotes from the document you’re after than how about these:
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. . . .
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. . . .
Some operators were reported to have in place ‘league tables’ that ‘ranked’ commanders according to the amount of fuel they took on departure exceeding that calculated by the computer program. . . The effect of keeping a league table as described exerts a form of pressure on each Individual . . .Such perceived pressure is known to have resulted in pilots departing with less than that calculated by the computer-generated fuel plan so that their position in the table could be ‘improved’. . . .
To depart on a public transport flight with less than the flight plan fuel calculated in accordance with a program accepted by the Regulator as sound - and without good reason - is likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions under which the Air Operator Certificate was granted. . . .
Are these points pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy . ., and if so why?
I feel this message is clear enough for all but the most obstinate of operators, it’s recommendations should be acted upon by all commanders who use Heathrow. It seems that the many non-UK operators have no problem with this. For those that won’t as a matter of policy, I personally believe that this should be a Class A Notam.
This is the Safety Regulation Group issuing an instruction on SAFETY. Isn’t that at the top of everyone’s list?
Given that very simple and sensible message, I cannot understand why anyone would want to refute or subvert the intentions of the SRG. If their aim is simply to avoid the carriage cost of ‘unnecessary fuel’ I would be extremely disappointed in the value judgements of the individuals involved. As I mentioned earlier, the penalties involved are relatively small unless we’re talking ultra long haul, and for short haul is such a ridiculously small cost as to be negligible. The whole thing is an accounting exercise and I would suggest that an operator that has to result to such penny pinching has far greater things to worry about.
If it’s quotes from the document you’re after than how about these:
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. . . .
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. . . .
Some operators were reported to have in place ‘league tables’ that ‘ranked’ commanders according to the amount of fuel they took on departure exceeding that calculated by the computer program. . . The effect of keeping a league table as described exerts a form of pressure on each Individual . . .Such perceived pressure is known to have resulted in pilots departing with less than that calculated by the computer-generated fuel plan so that their position in the table could be ‘improved’. . . .
To depart on a public transport flight with less than the flight plan fuel calculated in accordance with a program accepted by the Regulator as sound - and without good reason - is likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions under which the Air Operator Certificate was granted. . . .
Are these points pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy . ., and if so why?
I feel this message is clear enough for all but the most obstinate of operators, it’s recommendations should be acted upon by all commanders who use Heathrow. It seems that the many non-UK operators have no problem with this. For those that won’t as a matter of policy, I personally believe that this should be a Class A Notam.
This is the Safety Regulation Group issuing an instruction on SAFETY. Isn’t that at the top of everyone’s list?
Last edited by Capt H Peacock; 19th Oct 2002 at 16:04.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel...
well, not followed every item, but one and a half Radar pattern comes up to about 30' fuel. Remember it's calculated in the holding, and you'll wonder how much you need for a G/A and another 20 NM final (yes, pretty close to a ton, specially with flaps extended expecting a quickie...) and this with a final reserve of a few hundred kilos more than a ton. Not to mention if you need Anti-Ice...
Okay, what we can do legally (according JAR) will lead aviation sonner or later into a situation where a lot of planes are over a closed Destination first, with unconfortable fuel states, and then the same planes queing with even less fuel over the alternate.
I hope not to be part then on the scenery, but who knows.
In adverse wx-conditions i even take fuel in excess of the max landing weight to cover delays...as mentioned before, EGLL is a good example.
(By the way, the ATC in London deserves my respect for managing that lot of traffic, however, if the smallest thing happens (e.g. one holding area u/s due to TS), delay is unavoidable...but's not your fault. Thank you guys)
Okay, what we can do legally (according JAR) will lead aviation sonner or later into a situation where a lot of planes are over a closed Destination first, with unconfortable fuel states, and then the same planes queing with even less fuel over the alternate.
I hope not to be part then on the scenery, but who knows.
In adverse wx-conditions i even take fuel in excess of the max landing weight to cover delays...as mentioned before, EGLL is a good example.
(By the way, the ATC in London deserves my respect for managing that lot of traffic, however, if the smallest thing happens (e.g. one holding area u/s due to TS), delay is unavoidable...but's not your fault. Thank you guys)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peacock
If it’s quotes from the document you’re after than how about these:
Are these points pretty well representative of my employer's current fuel policy . ., and if so why?
The Authority is trying to create an environment where aircraft using one of the busiest international airports in the World, do not arrive in a position where the routinely experienced levels of traffic result in critically low fuel states over the city of London.
Given that very simple and sensible message, I cannot understand why anyone would want to refute or subvert the intentions of the SRG. If their aim is simply to avoid the carriage cost of ‘unnecessary fuel’ I would be extremely disappointed in the value judgements of the individuals involved.
Perhaps you'd better stick to reading the "Sun", because your shock and horror will not be vindicated here
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well - 3/3 to Cpt P, I'm afraid.
NW1 - I see you fly the 'pointy thing' ('PT'). I think you are a bit 'out of the loop', then are you not? When did you last hold? COULD you hold? Certainly in the days when Big A WAS the world's favourite you could not! Perhaps now you can? As soon as PT arrives on the scene, ATC implement 'PT ALERT' ATC plan and everyone else shuffles around and gets a couple more mins in the hold. How my heart sinks when I hear that callsign when I'm coming in! Not a problem in France, of course, where AF have priority over all traffic anyway.
Sorry to disappoint all the Nigels, but
1) "Does your company...." Answer: NO. The CAA asked that IF you EXPECT 20 mins hold (ie LHR and sometimes LGW), this fuel SHOULD be carried IN ADDITION to FP fuel AND shown as 'en-route fuel', not 'EXTRA'. Show me that, NW1, in your 'bible'?
2) "Is your company's...." Answer: Big actively encourage the use of contingency fuel to absorb delays before take-off. Its in your 'bible'. Legal, but......? Not for me!
3) "Does your company...." Answer YES (see Roobarb's post) and/or talk to the CAA - but you know that anyway, don't you? Don't give me that BS about the CAA flying with you and therefore.... It is well known that the CAA allows BA to 'self-regulate' and is frightened to say NO! to them. It was ONLY because the CAA finally threw their toys out of the cot that Big changed their fuel policy recently.
If the incident that started this thread was a genuine case of 'caught-out' then fine, but why not divert when the fuel shortage came to light?
Walt (carries extra fuel as needed, diverts when necessary...... and still employed)
NW1 - I see you fly the 'pointy thing' ('PT'). I think you are a bit 'out of the loop', then are you not? When did you last hold? COULD you hold? Certainly in the days when Big A WAS the world's favourite you could not! Perhaps now you can? As soon as PT arrives on the scene, ATC implement 'PT ALERT' ATC plan and everyone else shuffles around and gets a couple more mins in the hold. How my heart sinks when I hear that callsign when I'm coming in! Not a problem in France, of course, where AF have priority over all traffic anyway.
Sorry to disappoint all the Nigels, but
1) "Does your company...." Answer: NO. The CAA asked that IF you EXPECT 20 mins hold (ie LHR and sometimes LGW), this fuel SHOULD be carried IN ADDITION to FP fuel AND shown as 'en-route fuel', not 'EXTRA'. Show me that, NW1, in your 'bible'?
2) "Is your company's...." Answer: Big actively encourage the use of contingency fuel to absorb delays before take-off. Its in your 'bible'. Legal, but......? Not for me!
3) "Does your company...." Answer YES (see Roobarb's post) and/or talk to the CAA - but you know that anyway, don't you? Don't give me that BS about the CAA flying with you and therefore.... It is well known that the CAA allows BA to 'self-regulate' and is frightened to say NO! to them. It was ONLY because the CAA finally threw their toys out of the cot that Big changed their fuel policy recently.
If the incident that started this thread was a genuine case of 'caught-out' then fine, but why not divert when the fuel shortage came to light?
Walt (carries extra fuel as needed, diverts when necessary...... and still employed)
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from 120.4 at the top of page 5;
"It was not a "Nigel" aircraft. It had originated from the far east, had been held down and then re-routed from Afghanistan across Iran."
Why is it necessary for an intesting and informative thread to degenerate into BA-bashing? We are all professionals, and we all use our experience and judgement to ensure that we arrive with adequate fuel for the circumstances. Just occasionally even the most careful and conscientious pilot gets caght out.
Just because the ops manual says that you can legally take a certain minimum does not mean that you have to do so. I have always loaded whatever fuel either I or the co-pilot felt necessary (the greater of the two amounts). I have never had the slightest comment from management, even though I carried 25,000kgs extra on one occasion.
This thread is a repeat of the one started by Antigua some time ago. Having read both threads I have come to the conclusion that we all actually agree with each other.
Airclues
"It was not a "Nigel" aircraft. It had originated from the far east, had been held down and then re-routed from Afghanistan across Iran."
Why is it necessary for an intesting and informative thread to degenerate into BA-bashing? We are all professionals, and we all use our experience and judgement to ensure that we arrive with adequate fuel for the circumstances. Just occasionally even the most careful and conscientious pilot gets caght out.
Just because the ops manual says that you can legally take a certain minimum does not mean that you have to do so. I have always loaded whatever fuel either I or the co-pilot felt necessary (the greater of the two amounts). I have never had the slightest comment from management, even though I carried 25,000kgs extra on one occasion.
This thread is a repeat of the one started by Antigua some time ago. Having read both threads I have come to the conclusion that we all actually agree with each other.
Airclues
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sarf Coast
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've tried to stay out of this thread, 'cos I said all I had to say on the previous thread that I started, and to which '120.4' kindly referred.That was on the ATC Forum, There are too many 'wannabees' and general anal orifices on this one to have a sensible discussion.
However. Much to my co-pilot's amazement and delight, I took OODLES of XS into YYZ last time I went. (TS over that big pond thing they have there).
Sure enough, 500miles out, YYZ became 'closed'. We held somewhere up near the Arctic Circle for AGES, and subsequently got in OK.
The previous flight that day, ( two-holer), diverted, as did the next days!
The purpose of this post is not to blow my own trumpet. (It's too rusty). It is to illustrate that guys who wind up occasionally a bit short of gas at LHR, or anywhere else, are not necessarily either cowboys or company stooges. On occasions, we DO forsee trouble.
I've just got back from SIN. That took 14hrs 48mins. Longer than expected! Too long to forsee EVERYTHING.
All I'm saying is PLEASE cut the pilots and the controllers a little slack. ACCEPT there will be occaisions when a subtle hint over the airwaves will be of tremendous short term help to everyone concerned.
And stuff the Air Pilot and JAR where the sun don't shine.
ANTIGUA
Last edited by Antigua; 20th Oct 2002 at 18:11.
fly_lt_w_mitty
On the remote chance that you might bother to read something that disagrees with your entrenched views - and possibly even learn from it - try the following:
NW1 - I see you fly the 'pointy thing' ('PT'). I think you are a bit 'out of the loop', then are you not?
Why do you think a Concorde pilot must be "a bit out of the loop"? Please enlighten us with your reasoning.
When did you last hold?
Speaking as another "bit out of the loop pilot", very recently.
COULD you hold?
Yes.
Certainly in the days when Big A WAS the world's favourite you could not!
Not true. If you wish to base your postings on rumour and gossip, present them as such, don’t try to pass them off as fact.
Perhaps now you can?
Yes, just as before.
As soon as PT arrives on the scene, ATC implement 'PT ALERT' ATC plan and everyone else shuffles around and gets a couple more mins in the hold.
Please post a copy of this ‘PT ALERT’ plan, so that those of us who might benefit from it can see it. I’ve never heard of it.
Big actively encourage the use of contingency fuel to absorb delays before take-off. Its in your 'bible'. Legal, but......? Not for me!
If the delays before take-off are unexpected, and were not known about prior to taxy, then of course I will use my contingency fuel - that is what it is there for.
If delays before take-off are expected, we will either load more taxy fuel, or try to co-ordinate our start up with ATC to minimise delay at the hold.
Your other points have already been answered, and I see no point in repeating what others have already said.
Captain H Peacock
Well, I must give you credit for getting me to look at what the SRG has actually published, as opposed to a company translation, which can’t be a bad thing!
I think I see the point you are making, but as I haven’t read the documents you refer to in their entirety, nor compared what they require with our written fuel policy, I can’t comment until I have.
What I can say is that personally I have never been put under any pressure about the amount of fuel I carry, nor been asked afterward to justify a fuel load. Neither have I seen any league tables, or my position in them, although I gather others may have.
120.4
As I don’t know the full details of the incident you quote at the start of this thread, I won’t comment on the actions of the crew. Our initial assumption should be that they acted properly, unless and until it is proved otherwise.
However the situation you found yourself in is obviously highly undesirable, and I would hope that normally you would receive much earlier warning from an aircraft that was getting low on fuel.
Under our company procedures, you should receive a "PAN" call as soon as it is apparent that the aircraft may land with less than Reserve fuel (roughly 30 minutes flying) and a "MAYDAY" call as soon as it is evident that the aircraft will land with less than Reserve fuel. Both calls should be accompanied by an estimate of the flying time remaining in minutes.
This should mean that any aircraft on approach, that has not made either call, has sufficient fuel remaining safely to accomplish a Go-Around, circuit and landing.
In addition to the above compulsory radio calls, if getting down towards a fuel limit, I try to tell your colleague on Approach, a good few minutes ahead of decision time, how much longer I can hang around for, and what my options or intentions will be thereafter.
A significant part of the "Good Airmanship" we all aspire to is good communications with ATC.
Regards
Bellerophon
On the remote chance that you might bother to read something that disagrees with your entrenched views - and possibly even learn from it - try the following:
NW1 - I see you fly the 'pointy thing' ('PT'). I think you are a bit 'out of the loop', then are you not?
Why do you think a Concorde pilot must be "a bit out of the loop"? Please enlighten us with your reasoning.
When did you last hold?
Speaking as another "bit out of the loop pilot", very recently.
COULD you hold?
Yes.
Certainly in the days when Big A WAS the world's favourite you could not!
Not true. If you wish to base your postings on rumour and gossip, present them as such, don’t try to pass them off as fact.
Perhaps now you can?
Yes, just as before.
As soon as PT arrives on the scene, ATC implement 'PT ALERT' ATC plan and everyone else shuffles around and gets a couple more mins in the hold.
Please post a copy of this ‘PT ALERT’ plan, so that those of us who might benefit from it can see it. I’ve never heard of it.
Big actively encourage the use of contingency fuel to absorb delays before take-off. Its in your 'bible'. Legal, but......? Not for me!
If the delays before take-off are unexpected, and were not known about prior to taxy, then of course I will use my contingency fuel - that is what it is there for.
If delays before take-off are expected, we will either load more taxy fuel, or try to co-ordinate our start up with ATC to minimise delay at the hold.
Your other points have already been answered, and I see no point in repeating what others have already said.
Captain H Peacock
Well, I must give you credit for getting me to look at what the SRG has actually published, as opposed to a company translation, which can’t be a bad thing!
I think I see the point you are making, but as I haven’t read the documents you refer to in their entirety, nor compared what they require with our written fuel policy, I can’t comment until I have.
What I can say is that personally I have never been put under any pressure about the amount of fuel I carry, nor been asked afterward to justify a fuel load. Neither have I seen any league tables, or my position in them, although I gather others may have.
120.4
As I don’t know the full details of the incident you quote at the start of this thread, I won’t comment on the actions of the crew. Our initial assumption should be that they acted properly, unless and until it is proved otherwise.
However the situation you found yourself in is obviously highly undesirable, and I would hope that normally you would receive much earlier warning from an aircraft that was getting low on fuel.
Under our company procedures, you should receive a "PAN" call as soon as it is apparent that the aircraft may land with less than Reserve fuel (roughly 30 minutes flying) and a "MAYDAY" call as soon as it is evident that the aircraft will land with less than Reserve fuel. Both calls should be accompanied by an estimate of the flying time remaining in minutes.
This should mean that any aircraft on approach, that has not made either call, has sufficient fuel remaining safely to accomplish a Go-Around, circuit and landing.
In addition to the above compulsory radio calls, if getting down towards a fuel limit, I try to tell your colleague on Approach, a good few minutes ahead of decision time, how much longer I can hang around for, and what my options or intentions will be thereafter.
A significant part of the "Good Airmanship" we all aspire to is good communications with ATC.
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn P: I did not intend to offend - if I did then I unreservedly apologise (it was late and I was tired - and a little sore from all the BA bashing here and emotive exaggerations by some parties). I am very familiar with the SOC you mention, and my opinion is that there is no discrepancy between its implications and my employer's fuel policy. And I am happy that I have, and always have had, the authority and latitude to exercise good airmanship, judgement and calculate required fuel according to circumstances and have always tried to do so.
Yes, there are league tables somewhere - I *think* only for shorthaul fleets but am not sure. I think they are a dreadful abberation, and only tolerated by the authority because they are "de-personalised" with only "pin codes" instead of names so that only the individuals concerned can identify themselves. When I first got my command on shorthaul, I was told my pin number by the then chief pilot and I gently told him that I would not need it as I would base my fuel decisions on the conditions of the flight and not on the practices of others. He is a good bloke and understood my feelings on that (it is easier to have calm and reasoned discussions on the subject face to face than here on the PC's screen!!).
Mitty: Oh dear, very Victor Meldrew. The Concorde operation is at least as "in the loop" as any other, I just cannot for the life of me think why you presume otherwise. When did I last hold? Last time I flew - about 15-20 minutes. Just like everyone else so your heart needn´t sink. Not uncommon on the inbound service. We even had fuel for yet another 25 minutes because the forecasts were going for wind and rain and so we loaded up, didn't even touch the LGW full diversion fuel. I have never been on a flight where we've "pushed in" - slot swaps with own company a/c maybe a couple of times. And I wouldn't want to, either. Your comment about us not being able to hold at some time in the past is incorrect - the BGI operation is closer to the aircraft's operating range limit, but no more so than a 744 arrival from some far eastern stations. Your para. 3 is beneath contempt and certainly beneath worthy of a reply. "Walt (carries extra fuel as needed, diverts when necessary...... and still employed)", me too - and in accordance with the guidance offered on my company manuals (which is in turn IAW the CAA's SOC mentioned by Capt. P).
Yes, there are league tables somewhere - I *think* only for shorthaul fleets but am not sure. I think they are a dreadful abberation, and only tolerated by the authority because they are "de-personalised" with only "pin codes" instead of names so that only the individuals concerned can identify themselves. When I first got my command on shorthaul, I was told my pin number by the then chief pilot and I gently told him that I would not need it as I would base my fuel decisions on the conditions of the flight and not on the practices of others. He is a good bloke and understood my feelings on that (it is easier to have calm and reasoned discussions on the subject face to face than here on the PC's screen!!).
Mitty: Oh dear, very Victor Meldrew. The Concorde operation is at least as "in the loop" as any other, I just cannot for the life of me think why you presume otherwise. When did I last hold? Last time I flew - about 15-20 minutes. Just like everyone else so your heart needn´t sink. Not uncommon on the inbound service. We even had fuel for yet another 25 minutes because the forecasts were going for wind and rain and so we loaded up, didn't even touch the LGW full diversion fuel. I have never been on a flight where we've "pushed in" - slot swaps with own company a/c maybe a couple of times. And I wouldn't want to, either. Your comment about us not being able to hold at some time in the past is incorrect - the BGI operation is closer to the aircraft's operating range limit, but no more so than a 744 arrival from some far eastern stations. Your para. 3 is beneath contempt and certainly beneath worthy of a reply. "Walt (carries extra fuel as needed, diverts when necessary...... and still employed)", me too - and in accordance with the guidance offered on my company manuals (which is in turn IAW the CAA's SOC mentioned by Capt. P).
Last edited by NW1; 21st Oct 2002 at 17:41.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antigua:
Quite right. The application of common sense in these matters will usually see everybody home safe and well when something unforseen has happened. I too am sorry that this has degenerated a little. All I a wanted to do was encourage people to speak up early so that we don't ever get to MAYDAY and, as I have said, as long as nobody abuses that privilege ATC will be quite happy to oblige.
I seem to remember you were going to speak to SRG about relevant issues. Any joy?
Bellerophon:
"PT alert". Mmmmm. I am not supposed to comment on any alleged ATC procedures (commercially sensitive and all that) but suffice it to say that it is unlikely that Concorde will have to divert out of the hold due fuel. Make of that what you will. There is another thread running somewhere which is more explicit.
Point 4
Quite right. The application of common sense in these matters will usually see everybody home safe and well when something unforseen has happened. I too am sorry that this has degenerated a little. All I a wanted to do was encourage people to speak up early so that we don't ever get to MAYDAY and, as I have said, as long as nobody abuses that privilege ATC will be quite happy to oblige.
I seem to remember you were going to speak to SRG about relevant issues. Any joy?
Bellerophon:
"PT alert". Mmmmm. I am not supposed to comment on any alleged ATC procedures (commercially sensitive and all that) but suffice it to say that it is unlikely that Concorde will have to divert out of the hold due fuel. Make of that what you will. There is another thread running somewhere which is more explicit.
Point 4
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of days ago an Air Malta flight declared a pan, because of low fuel, at LBA. LBA was its destination and diversion airfields were readily availible. It has the feeling of a queue jumping exercise as the weather had just improved from Cat 3. Does anyone know more? If it was just to ensure arrival at destination is there likely to be any investigation into the incident. Is it considered correct to declare a pan just to avoid a diversion?
