skiesfull - In the case of LGW, LHR can be considered the second independent runway, and in practicality would probably involve less vectoring than trying to use a second independent runway at AMS when they are doing their noise abatement thing. If it all went really T/U there's also Farnborough within spitting distance, so its not as if you have nowhere to land, you'll just end up somewhere the company doesn't like.

CM
thanks for that - I'd forgotten that JAROPS were written by dyslexic lawyers! Not sure my company would appreciate recovery form Farnborough though!

Hey Carnage - you guys just crack me up! Are you for real?
- rebriefing? Is there now a minimum distance for a diversion airfiled in BA for briefing needs? How many genuflections and bows to the east do you BA guys have to make?
Umm - "alternate for Rome Ciampino - well, weather's good at both, but Fiumicino is to close for briefing, so let's make that er...Naples." In the next breath we are using Farnborough (which might not be open?)..................? Maybe that's why the LAX jumbo could not return to LAX - not enough briefing time - "let's press on to LHR."
- ah, I see.
- don't rely on your 'chances' when you get in the LHS, sir. However, I like the second bit of that - that's good.

Incidentally, - so would I, and I am advised that in BA that 7T should be a PAN anyway.

It would appear from some of the responses here, such as...

"In extremis I think you could be abeam Lajes with trip fuel to LGW, no holding capability and no div fuel (just min reserves) and still be legal."

...that we have truly found the problem with the low fuel state that permeates the operations of some British operators.

The absence of other carriers (Malaysian and Qantas, years ago, excepted) seems to indicate a planned modus operandi on the part of some British carriers to the idea of....'we can get away with it because the CAA will somehow 'understand' and further, possible expedited handling by a 'co-operative' ATC.

411a

I hope thats not what they think and that is not the planned 'modus operandi'.

They WILL NOT receive expedited handling by ATC unless they have declared an emergency. Its as simple as that as far as UK ATC into our airports is concerned.

If only ATCOs had the time to make such favouritism and change things round like that. They don't have the time, nor favour any airline. It's a case of get you off the frequency as safely and quickly as possible, not a case of dicking about trying to rearrange an order and making hard work for yourself!!

If you call an emergency you get priority. Thats it.

Now you're just being facetious (I hope). What I mean is you won't be blasting off to CWL at 350kts as you won't have time to reprogram the FMC, get the charts out etc. Have you ever tried going from the London area to CWL in a 747? No? Didn't think so. I have, and I can tell you that even when you've prebriefed it before departure it's still a busy sector. Which means its advisable to go there at 250kts unless you believe that the aircraft should lead you and not vice versa.

If LGW has closed after I've gone around and LHR has also closed completely I'd use Biggin Hill if I had to to get it on the ground whether it's open or not! You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of relative levels of urgency. Got enough fuel, do it by the book. Engines about to quit, do what you have to.


I rely on my chances everytime I come to work as do you. Chances are they built the aircraft properly, the engineers maintained it properly, we won't be hit by a meteorite. You can call it probability if you prefer, but thats just semantics, I think most readers know what I mean. If we didn't work on chance/probability we'd be flying everywhere with full tanks and this entire thread would be redundant, would we not?

You are adivsed incorrectly Sir.

Reading a copy of jarops on the toilet this afternoon I think there might be some misinterpretation of the planning/and or enroute requirements.I'm not trying to be definitive, its just how they read.

One rule concering two runways applies to planning a flight and removing the need to file a destination alternate. 2 independant runways (with criteria) wx 1hr before /after descent from msa in vmc.This is for flights under 6 hrs

An alternate should not be within 50nm or subject to the same wx phenomena as the destination. This is avoided (massaged as a rule)with convulted track miles, but the diversion fuel should allow for that. Bit of a cheat using lgw and lhr, as it is man and lpl.

Committing to a destination is allowed in two scenarios. When overhead, ie holding and no more than 50% of diversion fuel will be used.Brave call

AND when enroute fuel checks show a shortfall you can continue as long as the dest has two runways and has wx in accordance with planning for a destination.

So it doesnt necesarily need two runways. The virgin guy when over head could have theoreticaly held using half his diversion fuel.
However If he was aware earlier of a shortfall(when no delay means 20 mins ,is this legally binding?)then a diversion would be mandatory except if there are two runways.(the second two runway rule)That would mean serious brinkmanship arriving overhead, see overhead option. LGW doesnt have two independant runways and lhr is another airport not a second runway for lgw.As always the rules are open to interpretation and in these examples easily confused or quoted inappropiatelyMixing and matching the various planning and enroute criteria isnt an option but does happen in the murky world of jarops

Second runway criteria mean two independant landing surfaces in use served by independant landing aids at the same airport. LHR would be kicking the arse out of liberal interpretation as a second lgw runway:ok:

Anyone mind if I bring this thread down to my level? Fuel on the ground $60 a barrell. Fuel in the air- priceless!

Farty and BOAC
The example of 24L was perhaps not written properly. It actually came from an airline based at Manch. "As their fuel policy", so it was written rather tongue in cheek, so to speak. Sorry for any confoosion
watp,iktch

On the 2 or 3 occasions when we have been a bit thin on the right hand side of the pond, I can only say that the area and local controllers at MAN and LGW have been superb.

We come out of the Caribbean or Florida with a suitable amount of fuel for what we have planed and forecast. It also should take into account what time we will arrive at destination re holding.

On these occasions I have been screwed up by the muppets also known as ARINC - New York Radio............... I know they are only operators and I am always polite, but when you are planned for 370, gas for 370 and get offered 280 until half way across the Atlantic, there is no way you will have normal holding fuel when you reach destination.

So, we come off the Atlantic thin on gas, yes we have alternatives but at $10,000 a div minimum, we don't want to if possible.

So, I let Area know that in the event of holding I will be unable, that got passed forward, Approach asked again, I confirmed and we were brought in with minimal delay - nobody else held more than 1 turn more, it was the professionalism of the controllers that helped.

Each time, I called the watch boss and thanked them :ok:

Javelin

Thank you. Most are willing to 'manage' the arrival order in order to minimise overall disruption (for all operators). Nice of you to acknowledge our efforts.

.4

Well this is all very nice and cosy but what if your problem becomes someone elses problem.

For example inbound to LHR in the recent past we were advised to expect no more than two holds. This was fine, however at the end of the second hold we were advised to remain in the hold. Our situation now required that we divert. All because of '1 turn more'.

And how often do you call the watch boss?

Agreed.

It's no skin off, say, LHR ATC's collective noses to give some priority to whoever says they are a bit short for whatever the reason, but it will knock everyone else in the queue back a bit.

Throw in a PAN or MAYDAY and one will get extra spacing ahead of one on the approach to assure a landing. In the case of a MAYDAY one might be surprised how much and it is very possible depending when one declares it that traffic ahead of one will be broken off the approach to assure one that landing. Everyone else goes back even further.

If someone else is sweating on an EAT a priority approach for aircraft A may well result in additional delays and a diversion for aircraft B, C etc.

Just an observation really that operating on very tight fuel margins in busy terminal airspace to congested airports is an issue to more than just the aircraft with the fuel guages pointing towards the 'E". It affects all the aircraft going to the same airport at the same time.

All I'm saying is do your best, negotiate with the first people who are trying to upset your best laid plans, then if all goes to rat****, communicate and try to avoid a div. After all, we are all in the business to save our company money. We don't want to pee off 2, 3 or 400 passengers, so we as 'front end' do our best to manage the situation.

Porco, I understand what you are saying and it's logic is unescapable.

I would ask you to consider though that the purpose of minor 'management' of the arrival order in these circumstances (which is our right as we see fit under any circumstances) is to ensure that the waste involved in diversion can be avoided where it is reasonable to do so. One day it may be that airline A benefits and the next day airline B. Having such assistance available from ATC absolutely demands that nobody abuses the system i.e that it is just one of those rare occasoins when things have transpired against a Captain and we can all work together for the good of him and his pax. I am alsolutely certain that nobody would sanction an expedited approach to one aircraft that caused another to have to div because that would be counter to the whole aim stated above.:)

Finally, and I am sure I can speak for most on this, if we ever once come to believe that a particular operator is abusing this privilidge that will be the end of it, for him.:=

.4

P.s. for what it is worth, if its a toss up between two arrivals, all other things being equal, I put the long haul first as a matter of course.

One thing is pretty certain: if an aircraft declares that it is short of fuel, and makes this perfectly clear, yet for some reason does not declare a Pan or a Mayday, IF the aircraft fails to make asafe landing and hundreds of people are killed, there will be a lot of legal action against the ATCO and the Air Traffic Centre concerned.

Yes, the airline will also be sued by hundreds of relatives (or injured pax), but Air Traffic will too. Common sense tells you that if an airliner states that it is short of fuel, and nothing is done to expedite its safe arrival, if it does ultimately crash, they will not be protected by statements issued by the CAA or NATS deeming no emergency to be in existence because no Pan or Mayday was given.

Of course it is irresponsible to not make a Mayday in such a circumstance, but we live in a funny world, where justice seems to be something rather different from what we thought it was. I am not an ATCO, but if I was, I'd be a bit edgy about ignoring a statement that an aircraft was short of fuel. Some judge might decide to put the ATCO in jail for 5 years if things went wrong.

Nonsense, the only way to "make it perfectly clear" is to declare Pan or Mayday. Other language that conveys urgency would probably result in ATC asking "Are you declaring a fuel emergency?" but it's not the ATCO's responsibility to mind read.

What happens when they're changing ends at LHR - is the place closed to diversions for the duration? That certainly fills up the hold.

R

SLF

What do you mean by diversion?? If it's weather diversion, then an A/C that chooses LHR as its alternate would have to accept that on going to its alternate it may have to hold. An A/C merely diverting because the destination is, say, closed due weather has no priority over other A/C inbound to its alternate.

However if it then descends into an emergency, then it's a different matter.

I am not a tower controller, but I can say with 100% confidence that if LHR was changing ends, and a mayday called on a TC sector and wanted to divert to Heathrow, the bods at the airport would get the runway vacated by checker etc immediately. Runway direction is NOT an issue with a mayday - it's whatever the Captain wants.

If it was a PAN, again, the runway change would cease if the pilot insisted on Heathrow. However the pilot would also be informed of the fact a runway change was in operation and hopefully the reasons for it.... this information may actually end up with the pilot deciding that the runway condtions are too marginal at Heathrow.

Your question in itself if a little vague to give you the answer you are probably looking for.

Yes, sorry - I meant for an emergency diversion. We were spiralling away outside LHR long enough the other day for the flightdeck to make a PA explaining that this was due to the approach changing and "it can take a little while to sort out the incoming traffic when this happens", or words to that effect. In that context, I wondered about the consequences of someone diverting in on a mayday - and whether it would push the hold times towards that twenty minute marker for a number of people.

It's rarely the individual factor that worries me - in the case that sparked this thread, the immediate consequences of the mayday were minimal, as they almost always are. It's the potential for it to form part of a chain that I like to understand better (especially on the sixth turn in the stack after ten hours from SFO. Not that I was counting. Honest).

R