Shock horror - Nigel has to wait.
 

My compliments to Captain Nigel who spent valuable RT time this morning berating Heathrow Approach about the accuracy of EATs. I’m sure the controller was more than happy to pass the time of day with you, whilst juggling with the 20 other planes on frequency.

1. EATs are estimates, not slots.
2. Why is it always Big Airways that never has enough fuel?
3. If you want to have an argument with ATC, use the $%^&**€£ phone.

Signed, everybody else.

Er.......I'm still waiting for the 'News' aspect in this! You berate a Nigel for wasting everybodys' time on the air using the wrong medium.....aren't you wasting everybodys' time who came here for Rumours & News?
Anyway, have you never been short of fuel and had your plans further disrupted by being given misleading information, possibly resulting in serious worry? I have, and it's not a pleasant feeling. If you have an issue about BA fuel reserves, why don't you take it up with the CAA instead of ranting off here, flinging as much mud as you can. Where do you operate to/from? If not LHR, you may not appreciate the added pressures that place gives. Why not cut the gentleman a bit of slack? He has a lot of people to be responsible for.

Actually NotSo, time wasting on R&N is never usually an issue. We love to hear of events that affects us all. ;)

EAT are not guesstimates. They are what us pilots use to plan whether or not we have to divert or can commit to an airfield. Changing an EAT is not really acceptable as the flight may well have committed to LHR and not have fuel to go any where else. I totally agree that RT is not the place to discuss such issues but controllers (and London ATC are the best) shouldn't change EAT's once issued.

For example a crew coming into OCK on a nice day has 35 minutes holding plus fuel for the approach from OCK plus Reserve. Remember that as LHR has 2 RW's Diversion fuel can and may well have been used at this stage, but in this case the crew elect to use it as holding fuel. Pretty much what happens everyday in the holds around LHR. EAT given as 30 mins from hold entry. Every thing fine and dandy. With 10 mins to go ATC put the EAT back by 10 mins. Now the crew have no choice but to make a PAN call. All the crews decisions are based on that original EAT, all the correct procedures have been followed, unfortunately the action of the controller has put the aircraft into a dangerous position. That is something that should be discussed but not maybe on frequency.

On a nice day most aircraft in the holds around LHR are using their diversion fuel to hold. It didn't used to be the case but it is now. The giving of an EAT is vitally important because it means that a crew can commit to an airfield with only one RW, it greatly changes the decisions that a crew can and will make. Changing an EAT can put an aircraft in a very awkward situation. I hope controllers realise just how tight the situation can be these days and the implication that an EAT has to the decision making process.

There are those of us who feel the current fuel policy is just a bit too tight and carry extra fuel. However it is up to the CAA to regulate and they say it is acceptable to leave the hold, on a nice day, to a single RW airport with only enough fuel to make an approach plus Reserve. One day soon a controller will mess it up and change an EAT by 10 to 15 mins and every aircraft in the stack will declare a PAN, followed by MAYDAYs as panic sets in. That will be an interesting day. What will make it even more interesting is when some of the Easy/Ryan guys find that they can't get in Stan or Luton for 45 mins because of all the PAN/MAYDAY diversions. Cue for more and more MAYDAYs.

The min fuel we carry is dictated by the CAA. Carrying any extra is up to an individual Capt but on a nice day there should be no need. The changing of an EAT is serious and could have very very serious implications for all the London airports.

If you operate to LHR for a morning arrival, then you carry extra gas. I believe 20 mins holding is classified as NO DELAY. If you burn down to your CMR - you divert - simple.

Quote:

".... you may not appreciate the added pressures that place gives. Why not cut the gentleman a bit of slack? He has a lot of people to be responsible for."

Agreed. That's why you should carry extra gas when operating into the worlds busiest international airport. Berating ATC who were no doubt very busy, is unprofessional and non productive. ATC are also responsible for a lot of people (1,000's!).

I think we've all been in the position where we wish we'd put a bit more fuel on - but it was your decision and if forseen, or unforeseen, circumstances mean EAT's (*ESTIMATED*) start to slip..........deal with it - don't have a moan at ATC!

If it means a divert and tea with the CP - c'est la vie!

Personally, the idea of burning diversion fuel in the hold, possibly so as to land with only final reserve as the norm at a single runway airport strikes me as madness. What if the guy ahead bursts a tyre on landing...or worse and blocks the runway? Your options could be narrowed down to one.......... :ooh:

Tin hat on!

A4

PS I don't think ATC change EAT's just for the fun of it - probably a good reason!

A4 :)

Totally agree that complaining on the air is inappropriate. The person concerned should have waited until om the ground and if so concerned then called ATC to discuss.

That said EATs are most definitely NOT regarded as estimates in the sense that we assume they can only get better i.e they are worstcase. Whil occasionally something may force EATs to be adjusted ti a longer time the fact is that in line with CAA approved procedures many pilots find it necessary to commit to LHR and do do on the basis of an EAT. Hence this person's concern

Doesn't justify berating on the airwaves though.

Regards

Diesel

Theory behind commiting to an airport is that unless your diversion is a 2 runway airfield there is as much chance of a runway blockage there, only then you will definately be short on fuel. And as for LHR which has 2 runways and the Div is LGW or BHX both single runway airfields, you'd be increasing risk by diverting.

Still your cheerful self, are you NotSo?

Sitting on the ground behind my u/t on approach this morning I thought the BA chap was actually quite polite and was expressing a valid point.

The "E" in EAT is for "expected", and whilst we obviously do endeavour to keep them as accurate as possible there will inevitably be scenarios when through no fault of ATC they might slip one way or the other.

This morning was a case in point when at one stage we were able to bring times forward as delays were such that we were able to land a few on the departure runway, whilst a bit later requests to deviate around weather meant that the odd mile or two or three was lost on final approach. That inevitably will add to any delays and so knock the EATs backwards a bit.

I can only re-iterate that we do try to keep them as accurate as possible (they're worked out on a PC taking into account the wind, landing rate and wake vortex categories) and pass any revisions asap for your planning purposes.

If you're committing to Heathrow it might be usefull to say so briefly on the r/t as a heads up to us. I thought about saying at this point that we could then give you an extra mile or so spacing on final to ensure a landing clearance in good time, but then that would knock back the EAT of those still holding.......

WF.

HM is spot on - why would you burn your div fuel diverting to another airfield if your one is still open? Taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have 10 aircraft holding for LGW, and 10 for LHR passing each other in the air as they diverted to each others airfield. Doh!

Thanks!

Just started long haul a few months ago, and forecasting fuel burn is a bit like looking in your tea leaves. Its easy to add 5 or 6t and use 1-2 on the ground waiting for final loadsheet and then not get your level (been 8000ft low through africa) and burn the rest, so that nice cushion you gave yourself is all but gone. Also although forecasts are up to date when we look at them, they are 12-15 hrs out of date when we get there and often a bit worse for it.

As one of those who landed on the Departure runway this morning i would like to say cheers to the Heathrow controllers. One question. What governs EAT? We were in the Ockham hold and traffic coming in to Biggin were arriving at the hold later but leaving earlier, talking to my mate who was inbound via Biggin and sounds like we entered the TMA at similar times, but he had further to run to the fix, is this how it works? Not a whinge just a query!

HM,

Landing order is essentially first come first served.

However we manipulate it to a certain extent to take into account things such as the best vortex wake order, any holding done at the outer stacks before reaching the inner ones, suitable aircraft for landing on the departure runway if applicable and so on.

That is all done prior to an EAT being issued if we're in EATs. In theory once you've got an EAT your position in the queue is fixed as your sequence number will then have been allocated to you.

We issue EATs once delays exceed 20mins, said 20mins or less being considered "no delay" ie fairly normal at Heathrow.

WF.

Uh... what was the point again? :confused:

A point, if I might.....

I reckon about 50% of the time, we don't actually have two runways available for landing, as the departure runway is often closed to arrivals due cranes (T5 building site) infringing the obstacle clearance slopes

Ostensibly the cranes have an approximate 15 minute recall time, but there's been a case recently where the crane operator was having a tea break out on the jib, and he left his mobile/walkie talkie in the cab, and nobody could tell him to get the crane down because we needed the runway! Also if there are a handful of cranes up, it takes time for Apron Ops to phone around each operator.

Could be up to half an hour before we get them all down.

Thoughts?

A4 has it - if you know your diversion is busy then choose another one before you depart, otherwise why have one at all ?

Diversion fuel has to be used for that purpose or it is a nonsense.

Maybe I am simple.

I can't quite believe some of the comments made here, 'Why waste your diversion fuel diverting when your destination airport is still open'. Surely that statement goes against all the thinking behind carrying diversion fuel in the first place. The rule is 'as soon as you reach a fuel quantity that equals your diversion fuel+final reserve fuel then by law you MUST divert. This is whether you are in the hold for an airport that is closed due to whether or an airport that is just busy but open. Not diverting at this point makes a mockery of the entire process of carrying diversion fuel.

What happens if you decide to stay in the hold and eat into your diversion fuel because your destination is still open, then the unthinkable happens and the destination airport is closed for a couple of hours. Now you are in the hold without enough fuel to get to your diversion airport, how do you get around that. If your EAT is changed and the implication of this is that you reach the point of burning diversion fuel you must then divert, it is not a question of choice but of LAW.

Heres a question to answer: What would you do if you make an approach at an airfield with minimum fuel onboard then have to make a missed approach due to a temporary blockage on the runway. In the missed approach ATC advises you that you can position downwind again with no delay to make a visual approach, should you do this or should you divert?

By the letter of the law you should divert as in normal fuel planning only one approach and landing is included in trip fuel. The missed approach is acutally included in the diversion fuel. to make this visual approach you would have to have extra fuel onboard over and above the diversion and final reserve fuel. No extra fuel then you must divert after the missed approach. O.K. in real life most would more than likely carry out the visual approach and land. If some thing did go wrong however and you couldn't reach you diversion due to low fuel then you would look a real **** and the CAA wouldn't be to forgiving either.

AH can you direct us to this 'law' you're quoting? Does airmanship (ie the juggling of priorities and probabilities) have no place in your flight deck? You seem to assume that your diversion is wide open with no traffic or other problems of its own. Can you guarantee that before you leave the comfort of your LHR hold? If not, at what point does the diversion become more or less attractive than the destination?

It's not as simple as you imply.

Extra gas (I wish!) is not an option when you arrive from Asia!

When operating into LHR, or anywhere else with two runways, (and two open runways was the minimum requirement for burning diversion fuel in the destination hold), we had to satisfy ourselves at least one hour out that the weather forecast was good and that no delays were expected, (20 mins at LHR being the 'norm', if required). If we couldn't satisfy those requirements then we couldn't burn diversion fuel in the destination hold and had to divert when we reached the minimum diversion figure.

If the airfield only had one runway then it was not an issue, simply not allowed to burn diversion fuel in the hold.

I believe these rules apply to most operators with some minor variations.

Capt Fathom,

<Extra gas (I wish!) is not an option when you arrive from Asia!>

Extra gas is always available at the planning stage if you work for an airline and under an Aviation authority that lets the commander decide what fuel he wants based on the conditions of the day. If that means restricting the deadload, so be it.

Unfortunately such airlines are extremely rare these days, and the pilots of international airlines fly around with less fuel than is wise. The travelling public accept the odd diversion and smoking hole if the PR department put the right spin on it.