Why not? EUOPS?

Ancient Geek...I don't know if the same holds in Spain but in the UK the first EAT would be “no traffic delay expected”

Subsequent aircraft would get

“delay not determined (number) aircraft holding for weather improvement” .We would NEVER give an indication of time.

Hmmmm - I am not up to date with modern ATC practices and weather was almost never an issue when I did my flying in Africa.

OTOH, I still think it would be a good idea to include some idea of how long the bad weather is likely to last and how long it would then take to clear the current backlog.

Do the weather men and the approach controllers talk to eachother ?

It seems to me that too many crews hang around wasting valuable diversion fuel in the futile hope of landing when they would have diverted earlier if they had some idea of how long the delays are likely to be.

Good luck getting anything like that from Met. We will talk to them...but in 35 years at this I have never had a "firm" decision from them.

BOAC,
What? Can you do that now?

I used to think island holding was sporting but, at least, it was in a turboprop tactical transport which could have landed anywhere on the grass if necessary and had already demonstrated the ability to land in shallow water :E

(Aden Argosy)

Yes, for a long time we have been able to fly without alternate as long as the destination has two runways and weather is better than 2000ft/5000 meters and we carry 15 mins additional fuel.

Sorry, Basil - missed your query. Extract from EUOPS 1.295

c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
1. both:
(i) the duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance with OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours, and
(ii) two separate runways (see OPS 1.192) are available and usable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the destination aerodrome, the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility will be at least 5 km;

No requirement I am aware of in EUOPS for 45 minutes

[It then goes on to 'Island Reserve']

Personally, being a cautious and distrusting sole, I would always have had somewhere else I knew I could go despite the 'words':)

You need 15 minutes additional fuel = 45 minutes final reserve fuel.

Mea Culpa, manada - I always forget that sub para - my excuse, as I posted earlier, is that I never had or intended to use it so ignored it. I assume Easy and Ryan 'insist' on it at places like BCN, MAD, FRA etc? Do we know if any majors do?

Unless things have changed in the 4 years since I left ,Ryanair assuredly do not INSIST on it.

As you (rightly ) implore others to do, if you look way way back on here (somewhere on the appropriate thread ) there was a link to what constituted the Reqd fuel for the Ryanair flights that MAD (!) night, and it most certainly included fuel to divert to Valencia (the normal 1st alternate Villadolid/Zaragoza ? being closed at that hour.)

I do wish people would cease to perpetrate the myth that Ryanair are a bunch of cowboys that push everything to the limit & would "insist" that no diversion fuel was taken into major hubs.

Strangely enough, many many Capts in Ryanair are very experienced, and, just like you were BOAC, VERY cautious indeed in their fuel planning.

As I said earlier, this thread is about the debacle in BCN on 23rd Dec, there were no RYR involved, maybe they used some local knowledge/looked at the sky/ were just lucky ? but with 15 (is it now ? ) based aircraft in BCN , I would suggest a little more than luck was involved.

Apologies for dumb non-pilot question, but can someone describe 'low-visibility ops'? I'm assuming this is about ground manouvres when taxying, and restricting landings only to a/c suitably equipped and manned to land on instruments?

Does the ATC have to sort out which planes are certified to land in such conditions, or are all planes landing at BCN likely to be so equipped?

- reading all the guff on R&N about Ryan, I am mildly surprised.:)

Yep, I know where you are coming from there. . . .but they are not that bad, as long as you exert your "command authority" with your fuel decisions.
The problem is a few (and fortunately it is only a few) "lads" are frightened of their own shadow :rolleyes:

overthewing,

LVO (Low-Vis Ops) in this case refers to airport procedures when the weather goes below a certain value in the terms of visibility and/or ceiling. The exact values are commonly slightly different from airport to airport and the exact procedures do vary as well. E.g. at my base whenever Low-Vis Ops is enforced no other aircraft may commence their approach until we have reached the ramp. This inevitably slows down operation.

ATC does not need to sort out which airplanes are suitable to try an approach. The pilots are aware of their own limitations. Likely most planes going into BCN are equipped for landing given the weather presented, but not necessarily all of them. But that's for the pilot to know, not ATC.

Thanks for that, BOAC and ManaAdaSystem.
I last flew for BA in '97 and, although, within 1hr of arrival (IIRC), we could commit to destination given the sort of limitations which you mention I don't recollect being permitted to commit before departure.

Aahh, Island holding - RAF Gan - snorkelling followed by the beer can pyramid at the transit bar :ok:

........and watching the crabs (no, not those:)) scuttle along.

At easy, taking no alternate fuel (just the extra 15 mins) would only be planned if there are payload restrictions etc. it's never done as a standard fuel planning strategy.

Thanks, EGPF - any ideas on how often this happens? You are somewhat limited on destinations, of course.

I've not done it in 7 years. I could have on a few occasions but dumped bags, bars or pax instead because I wanted the extra gas.