use contingency fuel on the ground before t/o
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Italy
use contingency fuel on the ground before t/o
Due to long waiting before t/o and if your destination have only one runway, do you think it is possible to use the contingency fuel
Wich consideration you will use?
Wich consideration you will use?
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: hong kong
By definition, contingency fuel is required for en-route ATC and/or A/C deficiencies. ie. If you determine you require more fuel for taxi before take off or for eng.start/no Apu etc, then load the extra fuel. Destination ground manouvres not applicable.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Only a very foolish Commander would use his contingency fuel prior to departure.
IF he does so...back to the RHS, or better yet, shown the door.
With a swift kick in the backside.
Yes, in other words, he would be shown for what he truly is...a fool.
Come to think of it, there seems to be some of these fools around these days, at least one having trouble with his...hat.
IF he does so...back to the RHS, or better yet, shown the door.
With a swift kick in the backside.
Yes, in other words, he would be shown for what he truly is...a fool.
Come to think of it, there seems to be some of these fools around these days, at least one having trouble with his...hat.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
From: sh!# hole
So 411A, you would taxi back to your gate (if not already taken) and upload more fuel????
I think only a FOOL would contemplate going back to his gate at places like LHR, JFK and so on just because you burnt your contingency fuel.
Think about the time, costs of going back to the gate (holding to wait for another gate) refuel (wait for a refueller), taxi back out again (join the queue again) and then take-off???? The whole episode could cost you hours
You would have to be kidding!!!
I'm sure most would depart and then get the short cuts, altitudes and so on.
If then I'm short on fuel for my destination would I do a tech stop and refuel
(probably at some quiet place down the route). There's always a good chance you can make some fuel up.
I agree that there are some situations where I would replenish the tanks (short sectors with little contingency, along with bad destination wx),
411A needs to be somewhat a bit more practical.
I think only a FOOL would contemplate going back to his gate at places like LHR, JFK and so on just because you burnt your contingency fuel.
Think about the time, costs of going back to the gate (holding to wait for another gate) refuel (wait for a refueller), taxi back out again (join the queue again) and then take-off???? The whole episode could cost you hours
You would have to be kidding!!!
I'm sure most would depart and then get the short cuts, altitudes and so on.
If then I'm short on fuel for my destination would I do a tech stop and refuel
(probably at some quiet place down the route). There's always a good chance you can make some fuel up.
I agree that there are some situations where I would replenish the tanks (short sectors with little contingency, along with bad destination wx),
411A needs to be somewhat a bit more practical.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: In a house
411a
In this day and age you are more likely to be branded a hero than a fool for going plog fuel, using your contingency and landing with Company Minimum Reserve.
I remember having a discussion in the crew room with my f/o about carrying 200kgs of extra fuel for taxi (delays were expected), someone over heard us and made a complete mockery of us. Others around us joined in for a dig too.
It seems that pilots are de-sensitised about landing with min. fuel, and one seems to be the bigger man by carrying less fuel.
Shame
In this day and age you are more likely to be branded a hero than a fool for going plog fuel, using your contingency and landing with Company Minimum Reserve.
I remember having a discussion in the crew room with my f/o about carrying 200kgs of extra fuel for taxi (delays were expected), someone over heard us and made a complete mockery of us. Others around us joined in for a dig too.
It seems that pilots are de-sensitised about landing with min. fuel, and one seems to be the bigger man by carrying less fuel.
Shame
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
From: Bohol, Philippines
I suspect that 411A does not actually understand the term 'contingency fuel' as this term does not feature in FAA fuel calculations but is a JAR-OPS requirement.
If he does then he displays his ignorance.
If he does then he displays his ignorance.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
Originally Posted by edj
I remember having a discussion in the crew room
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 5
From: Chabanais, France
I'm sure 411a knows all about contingency fuel, just the same as he knows about adding 5 tons (B744), to the taxi fuel at JFK for a late afternoon departure, don't think he believes anyone would not adjust their taxy fuel if the need was there and so not compromise their contingency fuel which they may need later.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 2
From: In a far better place
Scenario… Departure ATIS clearly states, “Expected taxi time is 30 minutes.” … which is now a known fact.
Flight plan allowance for taxi fuel is 10 minutes. At least 20 minutes of additional fuel should be uplifted to account for the known taxi time as stated on the ATIS.
Contingent fuel should not be accounted for known facts while at the gate in.
Opinions?
Flight plan allowance for taxi fuel is 10 minutes. At least 20 minutes of additional fuel should be uplifted to account for the known taxi time as stated on the ATIS.
Contingent fuel should not be accounted for known facts while at the gate in.
Opinions?
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
I suspect that 411A does not actually understand the term 'contingency fuel' as this term does not feature in FAA fuel calculations but is a JAR-OPS requirement.
If he does then he displays his ignorance.
If he does then he displays his ignorance.
Now, if said Commander decides to use his contingency fuel whilst on ground anyway (as a matter of course), and then (speaking long range ops here) finds that due to stronger headwinds and/or lower flight levels being available than planned...and needs to land enroute for refueling, is showing extremely poor judgement and in addition, is subjecting the company to greatly increased expense (additional landing/technical fees, etc)...when he could well have used better judgement in the first place.
In addition, many long range ops are planned to the limit of an allowed flight duty period, and therefore making a tech stop enroute could well place the airline in a rather bad position, crew duty wise...not to mention a great disservice to the paying passengers.
In other words, use your brain, and choose the best alternative.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: Brazil
Congratulations 411A
I do have to say: "It's unbelievable" the guys are using their contingency fuel just because they've forgotten to uplift the FOB in order to face a probable and many times well known delay during taxi out ??????
UNBELIEVABLE
I do have to say: "It's unbelievable" the guys are using their contingency fuel just because they've forgotten to uplift the FOB in order to face a probable and many times well known delay during taxi out ??????
UNBELIEVABLE
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
I assume micheloni was asking about the day when someone reports a bird strike or possible loss of a bit and the runway closes for 20 minutes for inspection/sweep. I don't think even 411A would be able to predict that. Then it is the Captain's decision whether to return to stand like 411A or use some of the CF.
- which company please? I wish to avoid them.
the company's mantra