low and emergency fuel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You shouldn't plan to land at destination with less than Reserve fuel (alternate + final reserve). However inflight circumstances can change...
Alternate fuel comprises of fuel following missed approach, climb, cruise, descent, arrival and approach to your alternate. Final reserve is 30mins holding fuel at 1500'AAL.
According to EU-OPS (which may be the documentation you refer to) IF onboard fuel is calculated to be LESS than the final reserve upon landing then a MAYDAY must be declared. My operator believes it to be prudent to declare a PAN call if it is believed that there is potential to land with LESS than the final reserve. This would be upgraded to a distress call should it actually become the case.
I believe ICAO use the phrase 'with reasonable certainty' when referring to inflight fuel re-planning and a subsequent landing when calculated fuel upon reaching the destination will be approaching reserve. If this is calculated to be the case then I believe the 'with reasonable certainty' reference could be applied. For this you need to be 'reasonably certain' that a landing can be made at the destination as opposed to heading straight for the alternate. Considerations relating to single or dual runway availability, traffic flow, weather etc would be considered. At this point you are making the conscious decision to encroach upon your alternate fuel in order to land at your destination. At no point should you ever plan to land with less than final reserve (hold fuel) when committing to a decision. To be honest I would never want things to get that close!!!
Alternate fuel comprises of fuel following missed approach, climb, cruise, descent, arrival and approach to your alternate. Final reserve is 30mins holding fuel at 1500'AAL.
According to EU-OPS (which may be the documentation you refer to) IF onboard fuel is calculated to be LESS than the final reserve upon landing then a MAYDAY must be declared. My operator believes it to be prudent to declare a PAN call if it is believed that there is potential to land with LESS than the final reserve. This would be upgraded to a distress call should it actually become the case.
I believe ICAO use the phrase 'with reasonable certainty' when referring to inflight fuel re-planning and a subsequent landing when calculated fuel upon reaching the destination will be approaching reserve. If this is calculated to be the case then I believe the 'with reasonable certainty' reference could be applied. For this you need to be 'reasonably certain' that a landing can be made at the destination as opposed to heading straight for the alternate. Considerations relating to single or dual runway availability, traffic flow, weather etc would be considered. At this point you are making the conscious decision to encroach upon your alternate fuel in order to land at your destination. At no point should you ever plan to land with less than final reserve (hold fuel) when committing to a decision. To be honest I would never want things to get that close!!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timely info from the NASA Safety Report program: ASRS : : CALLBACK Issue 367
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is allready quite disturbing to see your fuel gages turn amber, telling you you're low on fuel which in turn prompts the low fuel checklist when you are still above alternate plus final reserve fuel.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know which a/c Denti is talking about, but the 737 has two selectable 'low fuel' levels, one for ETOPS and one for non-ETOPS. Some airlines do not bother to distinguish between the two, so you can get the 'Amber' figures when you are not actually short and you do not need to do the 'low fuel check-list'. It is just a matter of education. On the 737 the check-list is only really required with less than 453kg in a tank but some airlines have it set at 906kg.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glided over the threshold and rold (rolled?) to a stop. the firemen all pushed it to the north apron.
Sadly...
IF an FAA registered aircraft, certificate action against the pilot is guaranteed.
And, as it should be...barring any unfavorable contingencies.
Jeez Louise...low fuel...no fuel.
A bad (usually avoidable) condition.
Hopefully.
Recently arrived over EZE, first no delay, then...forty minutes delay.
Maybe....EZE is not the best place for accurate information.
We held..had enough gravy.
Others..diverted.
An easy choice, when gravy is low in quantity.
EZE needs to get their collective act together.
Don't hold your breath, hell will freeze over, first.
Last edited by 411A; 22nd Jul 2010 at 19:27.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, BOAC, 737 of course. Boeing offers the ETOPS warning as standard equipment and you have to pay extra to get the lower warning threshold. Since some airlines rather do not pay for that the crews have to put up with the too early warning and are legally bound to do the low fuel checklist even if they never fly ETOPS on their 737s. In my previous company OPS had to correct reserve fuel to 1900kg if it was lower to prevent that.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denti - it is plain that Boeing do not consider the low fuel drill NECESSARY until 403 a side, so a little commonsense could apply here. The last time you want to be doing an unnecessary drill is when you are tight on fuel ie near alt + reserves or even reserves so my brief was either to get it out of the way early or wait. Putting reserves up to 1900 is just dumb! That would make around at least 26-3000 landing minimum! Did they go out of business perchance?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Equator
Age: 50
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Are you referring to the time as to when you should declare a low and emergency fuel state.
Well different airlines take different views of that and incorporate the same in their policies. A good reference to consider would be with regards to the holding fuel remaining on board.At any time if you find that the EFOB on the MCDU(A320 family) is 1200 KGS(30 mins. holding fuel) you should declare a low fuel state to ATC(PAN call).Likewise if EFOB is 600 KGS(15 mins. holding fuel) you should declare fuel emergency(MAYDAY).
Hope you are never in this state...............cheers
Are you referring to the time as to when you should declare a low and emergency fuel state.
Well different airlines take different views of that and incorporate the same in their policies. A good reference to consider would be with regards to the holding fuel remaining on board.At any time if you find that the EFOB on the MCDU(A320 family) is 1200 KGS(30 mins. holding fuel) you should declare a low fuel state to ATC(PAN call).Likewise if EFOB is 600 KGS(15 mins. holding fuel) you should declare fuel emergency(MAYDAY).
Hope you are never in this state...............cheers
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, they got bought up after turning a massive profit which the buying company never managed hence 
Actually, the checklist we use states as condition quite clearly if fuel is below 907kg a side it has to be read. Only very few places exist where the alternate is close enough to be below the 1900kg figure anyway, for example vienna or berlin tegel, the latter one being closed in 2 years which will put an end to it there.
Actually, the checklist we use states as condition quite clearly if fuel is below 907kg a side it has to be read. Only very few places exist where the alternate is close enough to be below the 1900kg figure anyway, for example vienna or berlin tegel, the latter one being closed in 2 years which will put an end to it there.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, meant reserve as the total of final reserve plus alternate, which is what we plan to land with at the destination. Well, the OFP actually plans to land with alternate, final reserve and contigency, but with contigency figures usually around 150 to 180kgs that is not a big difference.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't aware of the numbers on the ETOPS certified 737; however I agree with BOAC. Surely common sense prevails should you reach something close to 1800kgs on a non-ETOPS rotation. The 'regular' QRH relates to 453kgs aside, which would have me flying around at final reserve on most of our OFPs. Even if we were operating ETOPS 737s, the figure set for the LOW FUEL indication would have us eating up our reserve allowance. This is defaulted to be no less than 2000kgs at the planning stage. Rectal contraction would ensure that the LOW FUEL NNC was well out of the way by this stage. Maybe that's just me?
