New EASA fuel rules
 

https://aviationweek.com/special-top...39e31fb88cc4cc

I always thought the move away from the old UK CAA rules was a bit rash, but now they want to go further?

You can guarantee that some operators will be doing this. Try operating to one of the busiest single runways in the world and an aircraft bursts a tyre on the runway closing it, or the aircraft departing is slow lining up and you have to go around. The closest airports are refusing diversions and your alternate is at least thirty minutes away and you are the back of the queue diverting there. One of the big wheels at Easa operations, the part that come up with these initiatives used to be the head of flight safety at a european flag carrier, a carrier that had four hull losses during his tenure.

Makes me appreciate the airmanship approach to fuel at our operator.

PoM
 

Well, you can always mark the paperwork with "Reason for extra fuel .....PoM". It always worked for me.
Prober

Forget the western managers. I have been flying for 22 years and I can confirm that you don’t want to plan less than 45 min extra fuel (and that’s cavok conditions!)

Having read the new fuel policy I see it as a logical evolution. The operator I work for has been using statistical analysis for fuel planning for a while now and it works quite well. Not all airports are the same and a simple 30 min + 5% is not necessarily appropriate.

I am free to take as much extra fuel as I feel is justified but TBH I hardly ever find the need for it as their fuel planning is pretty good. 2 years data collection represents over 700 flight for a daily flight which is a far better sample than my 10 flight that I might do in the same timeframe, so chances are they will make a pretty good decision.

Is this a change from fixed percentage contingency to statistical or something more sinister?

If it’s a move to statistical then agree with Kennytheking’s comments.

Had a quick look at this. Noted that they mention weather . Wonder what´s meant by that.

The explanatory note says this
- training program for operational control personnell...
Quote
The training programme is based on the provisions of ICAO Annex 1. Additional training elements are included, based on examples of good practices by operators that have already established a training programme for FOOs. These additional elements are the following:
— the effects of meteorological conditions on radio reception on the aircraft used by the operator;
unquote (....)

Couldn´t find a training program for pilots mentioned - maybe it´s in the other §§§ ?

It is interesting that this comes wrapped in green. It's of course easier to authorise reduced fuel reserves than to introduce free-route "direct to" airspace over all of Europe (which works great where it is implemented already).

The trouble with statistical analysis is that single events don't really show up in averages and that the single runway closure described above will have everyone heading for the closest alternate (filed for lowest alternate fuel) which will be overwhelmed as well. That could possibly be alleviated by a kind of filing cap for alternates not allowing all carriers operating under reduced reserve/contingency fuel schemes to select the same alternate (a kind of "slot" for your alternate).

The article references airlines, but I assumed this will be covered under Part-CAT, so applicable to both scheduled and ad hoc commercial air transport. Ad hoc transport already has significant human resource issues that would make reliable statistical analysis difficult for the majority of operations as individual entities - compounded by very few routes being “regular” and significantly mixed fleets. Whilst the Vistajets and NetJets are the common visible representation of the charter industry due to their fleet sizes and common livery, the European non-scheduled fleet equals that of scheduled operators in terms of tails. The vast majority of operators having under ten aircraft, with a surprisingly large number of operators having under six. It is a very fragmented market. This could be resolved by mandating greater collaboration within the various associations i.e. NBAA/EBAA with respect to sharing data. This could also be facilitated in FDM whereby the duopoly of third-party analysis services could provide anonymous data for airport pairs and fuel burn.

Like you, I agree that with the right motivation, this is an sensible evolution, and industry collaboration could exponentially increase the fidelity of the data, even amongst the scheduled Part-CAT segment. But perhaps EASA strategy addresses that - make the rule, then force the industry to come up with its own solutions?

Have long wondered why they don't do this. And as usual they don't have an answer for this common challenge. A diversion from one of the Balearic islands a few years ago resulted in someone landing with 750Kg in an A321. The reason was congestion enroute to and at the alternate. The traffic from 2 airfields was diverting to just one due to weather. The extra 800Kg taken for weather was not enough on the day.

Statistical of additional fuel use
 

Flawed logic considers the low statistical need for more than minimum FP fuel.

Instead it is more logical to consider the result of arriving at diversion or alternate with insufficient fuel.

With thousands of flights evey day sooner or later this policy will cause a crash.

Many years ago the rumour goes that an aircraft arrived at Perth, Western Australia with airfield closed due weather. Insufficient fuel for anywhere else open. Although crew not trained or certified, they did an ILS/autoland, being the alternative to ditching.

It's not a rumour, just a thing that happened:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200605473/

The crew/aircraft were trained/certified but Perth only had a Cat I ILS.

Also the operating environment for taking a widebody to Perth is fundamentally different to Europe where you can't spit out the window without hitting a 45m ILS equipped runway so I'm not quite sure how applicable this incident is.

For reference in this case the nearest 'suitable' alternate for the A330 available to the crew was 600nm away.

I believe it is the PIC's job to make sure that doesn't happen.

Always take the amount of fuel you think is required, not the amount the Computer that spits out the Flightplan thinks is enough.

Anyone who would like to know more about the new EASA Fuel Rules, EASA will be hosting a webinar to explain more about the background and the different approaches that are now possible.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...nagement-rules

What do you cover with your approach and what level of risk are you willing to take ?
If you agree to """routinely""" burn into your final reserve, then ok, go ahead.
However, if you consider that final reserve is something that should never be touched, ever, then your reasoning could be different.
You want the fuel runout event to be less likely than 1/1 billion flight hours
Go around is something that happens approximately once in every 100 to 1000 flight hours. So you must have at least 3 go arounds planned for your flight (and up to 4 or even 4.5). For a standard A320, that gives you between 2.1T and 3.1T. 2T is the legal minimum fuel that we usually have given the distance of alternate airfields for major cities in Europe. 3T is 1T extra, which is a reasonable amount of fuel that is usually taken for reasonably bad conditions. This very simple calculation worked out quite well.

Going below this you're not covered for anything more with the right level of safety.
Two go arounds in the same flight (clear skies), or three go arounds in the same flight (bad wheather) is really bad luck and does not happen everyday, but if you aim for a 1/1 billion flight hours level of safety, you absolutely need to cover this case.

“There is no reason to lift up more fuel reserve into the sky than necessary; lifting fuel burns more fuel,” EASA flight standards director Jesper Rasmussen said.

Why don't EASA ban tankering for commercial gain since they claim to care so much about CO2 emissions. :ugh:

Where can one find the actual new rules? Couldn't find them in any of the links provided...