munrobagger

I had thought that an aircraft had to have enough fuel on board to return to it;s start point .
A colleague at work was on board the KL flight due to touch down at EDI this morning at 0905 , captain took 3 attempts to land in high winds , passengers said to screaming in terror , came on and said he might have to divert to GLA or NCL as they did;nt have enough fuel to return to AMS .

Envoy320

What on earth would make you think that...!!!???

If you were flying from Los Angeles to Heathrow and it was a bit windy in Heathrow or foggy....would you expect, as a passenger, to divert to say...Birmingham or Manchester...or go all the way back to Los Angeles?!!!

Seriously...THINK about the posts before you post them....!!

Localiser

The fuel on board prior to a flight is:

- Trip fuel.
- Taxi fuel.
- Contingency; normally 5% trip (but can be reduced to 3% in certain circumstances).
- Final Reserve; enough to hold at 1500' for 30 mins.
- Alternate fuel; enough to go around, fly to alternate airfield and land.

Extra fuel may be carried in the form of 'tanking'. This is if fuel is significantly cheaper in one airport than another. Also extra fuel may be carried at the discretion of the crew for marginal weather conditions etc.

In your case, either GLA or NCL would be fairly typical diversion airports from EDI. So I suspect that they may have loaded extra fuel in order to "have a few attempts" before having to divert; and then diverted to their nominated alternate. It would be very rare to have enough fuel to return to destination. Remember though, it costs money to carry extra fuel which is why airlines are so hot on carrying minimum fuel when able. Incidentally, if they were carrying minimum fuel on the day in question, it is likely that they would have had to divert straight away following the first missed approach.

Hope this is of some use to you rather than the irrelevant, unhelpful and patronising drivel that Envoy320 wrote who I suspect is a SLF anyway. The comparison to a LAX-LHR sector is hugely irrelevant; on short sectors I have more than once in my career returned to the departure airport. It riles me when somebody like yourself asks a perfectly civil and straight forward question only to be 'shot down' by such buffoons; that's precisely why I rarely use PPRuNe these days. If it helps, I'm a commercial pilot (ATPL) with +10 years experience flying medium/large jets so believe I can speak with (some!) authority...

Cheers, LOC.

munrobagger

Thanks localiser , what made me post was the comment of the Dutch captain that he did not have enough fuel to return to AMS . That must have been a bit unnerving for passengers .

Localiser

No problem. I guess passengers can indeed read into things a bit literally! But as I said, it's a normal event. Having enough fuel to return to destination is slightly rarer.

All the best.

boredcounter

Loc,


As a groundie, Ops chap, may I say what a top and well worded response mate.

Nicholas49

Localiser, can I ask you a question? Can you explain why it is that on minimum fuel you have to divert after a missed approach rather than re-fly the approach?

Surely a trip around the circuit would require less fuel than a diversion? Or is it that there isn't enough fuel to afford two missed approaches? If so, what happens if you need to do another one at your diversion airport?!

Many thanks
Nick

Rainboe

You have the option of landing at destination only and losing your diversion options. Nobody cares, BUT, there is an overriding requirement not to land anywhere 'with less than Reserve Fuel' which is basically 30 minutes, and should be regarded as a minimum fuel inflight. Punishment for failure is a lot of paperwork and interview with Flight Manager. I've come close twice!

There is a misconception that when you start to lose your diversion, you must divert. Daft. I was asked last year by a copilot when we were flying on minimum flight plan fuel 'but if we burn our contingency inflight, we HAVE to divert, don't we?'. I thought to myself 'shall I spend half an hour explaining the structure of fuel reserves, or just sigh?' I sighed. It's all there in the manual waiting to be read.

I find posts like the OP a little objectionable. I don't believe sturdy Scots were 'screaming in terror'. They get all the weather up there. I have flown in diabolical turbulence. The night the Dragonair 747 scraped 3 pods at MAN was as rough as I have even known. I did 3 approaches that night, Bristol, East Mid and MAN itself (once it re-opened) coming in from exoticland. Nobody screamed. If I had, I would have got out of my seat and given 'em one, but nobody did. Then we have someone with a totally misguided preconception that is literally harebrained. Some of you are very patient.

wiggy

Generalised fuel policy for passengers, screaming or otherwise:

Rule 1. You must always be able to land somewhere with 30 minutes fuel remaining in tanks, and that does not have to be the airfield of departure, and you do not always have to have the fuel to go to, or even need to nominate, an "backup" airfield or even a "backup" runway.....(e.g. Island reserve anyone )

Rule 2. There is no rule 2

Rule 3. See rule 1..............................

(reckon I get to back to LHR with enough fuel to return to point of departure about..., ohh, 0% of the time.....oh heck they've started screaming again)

Localiser

To second what Rainboe says; you don't have to divert at all, but if you choose to stay at destination you are committing to stay there and land. Hope that helps. There's so many variables in something like this and to list every possibility is a never ending story I'm quite sure! I just tried to summarise it as briefly as I could.

Thanks boredcounter!

Nicholas49

wiggy - is the "mandatory diversion following missed approach" policy therefore a myth? I was told this by a friend who is a commander at an unnamed but well known Irish airline. If I understand you correctly, the decision to be made involves weighing up whether the diversion or second approach at same airfield will still leave you with 30 minutes fuel? (Plus other factors such as weather obviously)

Rainboe - I'm sure the passengers weren't "screaming". A couple of gasps, yes maybe, but I think there may be just a little exaggerating go on here! I am sure the night of your three approaches you explained to the passengers what you were doing so there was no need for screaming

Thanks Localiser, appreciated.

wiggy

Nicholas....certainly in my outfit (and I suspect most others) there is no such thing as a policy requiring "a mandatory diversion following missed approach." Usually it's down to the Commander/crew. For example if the weather was good and you'd only had to shoot a missed approach because a previous aircraft had been slow clearing the runway IMHO your boss would expect you to make another approach, fuel allowing.

Rainboe

.....do what you like, just don't end up with less than 30 minutes in the tanks, wherever you land- the paperwork is excrutiating!