BOAC

- coincidence or what - Cx 30 Nov2012? Are the CAA monitoring PPRune and getting nervous? - me too, but I thought it would be useful to be able to SEE the expected holding fuel allocated (or not...), since if it is (correctly) included in the PLOG in trip fuel (if only!!) or some sort of 'fudged' contingency figure it would not be obvious.

I'm waiting to see how many of the 'they won't let me take enough fuel' come forward with proof. Like you I would happily operate into a CAVOK field in 'quiet time' with PLOG fuel - and probably arrive with a reasonable excess. From what you tell us about the ASR policy in XXXXX I would assume there must be lots!

737Jock

Penko:
How many times I landed with less the final reserve + alternate in LGW, not thanks to the flight plan though.
I have however landed with final reserve + alternate after holding for 25 min in LGW. And often I have to burn some of the "extra" fuel that I load.

And no I don't feel any pressure from above, never have been questioned about the fuel I take. And from what I see in the techlog, I'm neither low nor high with the fuel I land with.

BOAC

- so the system works. Now, the important bit - were you dragged into the office and asked to explain the extra fuel on these occasions?

737Jock

BOAC I'm not comcerned about contingency. But Does it work?

My concern is what happens after those 25 minutes and I shoot off to the alternate. Mind you I'm talking about a planning perspective here, in the air all that counts is landing with final reserve. So simply planning:
As you can see 2 of the 3FR aircraft diverted well above final reserve + alternate was reached. They didn't do a go-around so that saved some fuel as well. But they all had to declare a mayday to land with final reserve. Ergo to me it seems their alternate fuel was insufficient.
Or should it be expected to immediately declare a mayday once you elect to divert at final reserve + alternate?

Is it normal that any delay will lead to a mayday, or is our alternate fuel being planned too tight.

737Jock

As I said in my company there is no pressure on what fuel to take.
No fuel league tables either.

But that's not to say we never get debacle from the beancounters, but this is targeted to the entire pilot group not individuals.

BOAC

- I did not mention contingency - I asked about the 'pressure' placed on you for taking the 'extra'.

Regarding RY MAD-VLC - I would prefer not to pollute this thread with yet another RY 'inquest'. I do not know the answer. If the IAA report does not cover your question then I suggest you re-open the relevant thread. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-time.html.and ask.

737Jock

Ok fair enough.

Let me ask you this then.

Should company's allow for some delay, x minutes, when they calculate the alternate fuel?
If so, what should x be?
And if so all airports, or based on traffic movement?

9.G

reputable operators have a well established performance and fuel consumption monitoring program. Based on those observations the operator usually adds a so-called compensation fuel based on statistical overburn for a particular route flown.

PENKO

Your point being?
So you are saying that on a beautiful normal day you ended up holding for 25 minutes and still landed with CMR. That means you usually load up quite a lot of extra fuel. However, the company just wanted you to divert in stead of uploading all that fuel ALL THE TIME. So what you did was going against SOP. Yeah you delivered your pax at destination, but you burnt quite a lot of fuel needlessly on all those other occasions when you landed without significant delay! The company doesn't want that. They clearly state so in the OM. They pay your salary. Why do you not obey?

PENKO

Why on would you?
Say you divert on CMR (Altn+Fin Res)
At this point you should have already been well comfortable with the possibility of a diversion close to the limit. Maybe you should have diverted earlier if you think the situation warranted it. Maybe it's just not your day. Anyway...
You divert.
If ATC cooperates and everything goes to plan there is no need to declare ANYTHING.
If ATC does not cooperate, you declare a PAN, because you think you may end up below your 30 minutes final reserve.
If ATC still does not cooperate, and you know you will by now land below final reserve, yes, then it is not your day and you declare a mayday.

That is how the system works and if you play it like this, who can blame you? (assuming you did all your preflight planning correctly?)



Anyway, is this not exactly what the extra 30 minutes are for? i.e. to cover the fact that it just might not be your day?

737Jock

I'm not that sure what you are asking Penko, I answered your question didn't I?
Point being I guess is that if I hadn't taken the extra fuel I would have either had to divert to STN or LGW.

But in general it means I always have 20 minutes to hold at LGW! And from what I see in the techlog so do most of our colleagues.

Contingency fuel is for unforeseen conditions, as such you cannot use it in the planning phase for foreseen delays into LGW, MAD etc. But it can be used for differrent flightlevels, unexpected icing, wind different then forecast etc...

I don't know how statistics can be used in contingency fuel, but if statistics are used to determine delays at airports this inferres that such an avarage delay is expected. And can you then still call it contingency fuel?
But maybe companies who use statistical contingency have another defenition of contingency then we have, our ops manual says:

My main question is how reliable is the fuel that is calculated as alternate fuel? I personally have my doubts when I see directs in the alternate route description, or not taking into account VOR approaches that might need to be flown fully stabalised. I believe they are somewhat optimistic.

PENKO

I'm asking you to stop wasting fuel needlessly. 737jock, if most of our LGW colleagues land with a similar surplus of fuel, it just means that the company is loosing a LOT of money on surplus fuel. Again. The company WANT you to divert in the situation you describe. I can't put it any clearer than that. On a beautiful quiet CAVOK day, load plog fuel and divert as necessary. That is SOP. I've never had to divert yet, but I'll do so gladly if it comes to it.

Now if there is a systemic problem in LGW, the company will wake up to the fact if we have mass diversions. Now it is just the beancounters moaning about those stupid pilots who 'buy' too much fuel. Anyway, the statistics for LGW, have you seen them? How much fuel is burnt over plog? I'll let you do the math, it's your base


By the way, we don't necessarily fly VOR approaches stabilized. You have a GPS don't you, two of them last time I checked! So fly managed and save fuel. I wouldn't say this if I would not encounter many colleagues who insist to fly a VOR or NDB approach stabilized on a CAVOK day with GPS primary...

737Jock

Yes Penko, but what I'm thinking here is that in the OLD days when fuel was cheap pilots did not really look at 100kg more or less. Or at least i'm led to believe such was the case by older generations. As such there was more fuel in hand.

Nowadays fuel is expensive, and for all companies its the single biggest cost. So all companies are trying to reduce fuel loads as much as they can. I can see a situation develop where multiple aircraft have to divert and all declare a mayday due to overoptimistic routing leading to not enough alternate fuel being planned.

And in my mind such a situation will not develop when adverse conditions are expected.

Half an hour final reserve is not much, and it won't even total to 30 minutes if a go-around is involved.

So maybe there should be a legal element of contingency fuel regarding the alternate fuel, call it alternate contingency? We are talking in this thread about how we think fuel should be planned versus how it is currently planned.

I'm just talking planning here. Personally I will either commit to destination when landing is assured, or divert early if it is not. Most likely I won't wait until the meter hits CMR. But that is practical, not planning.

PENKO

Mass diversions on a CAVOK day. That is an interesting scenario for the policymakers amongst us. With this you enter the realm of true risk management, i.e. the safest option:
stay in bed.

Next safest: call in sick.

Then load fuel for a return trip etc. etc.

You see what I mean?

Ok. Say you fly to Amsterdam during rush hour and you know that a closure of Amsterdam will clog (haha) up Rotterdam within one second. Yep. That's interesting. If you think that this is big enough of a concern for any destination you serve, then by all means, select a second or a third alternate. That is what you are paid for.

Anyway, if you look at it logically, only the aircraft already on approach will have a problem (or not as they will 'fit' in Rotterdam). The rest will divert enroute which gives far more options. At least, if they are smart enough.

9.G

on a practical note, uplifting more fuel doesn't mean increased burn off provided one ask for direct, chooses opt levels, flies managed speed. Most fuel is saved during the approach. Even on 330, where any extra fuel is believed to be wasted up to 50%, I uplift up to 1500-2000 kg more, when I feel it's needed, and upon shut down the burn off is the same or sometimes less. Isn't that what matters? Fuel in the wings isn't wasted but preserved.

737Jock

I'm not wasting fuel needlessly Penko! I'm complying with a requirement to be able to hold for 20 minutes. Since my alternates are all london airports I don't see how that is wasting fuel.

Sorry but I have to protest against the idea that because fuel is not used it is not needed.

737Jock

Oh regarding VOR approaches, as soon as you have an engine failure you can't do a managed approach. Or is that also unlikely, maybe we should scrap the requirement for takeoff alternates entirely.

PENKO

Regarding your suggested alternate contingency... again isn't that incorporated in your final reserve? (question!)

Now I know we should not land below final reserve. But what you are suggesting is a safety measure on a safety measure, double locks on your door, double redundancy. Is that warranted?

PENKO

If it is a local requirement as you say, then the company must calculate or at least annotate the flight plans as such. So start writing your base captain a letter.


Anyway, where does this engine failure suddenly come in from? You might as well conjure up any other failure after your CAVOK diversion, most of which can all be dealt with by your final reserve.

737Jock

I don't know. Is Final reserve fuel contingency fuel or not?
I think using contingency fuel should not require a mayday. But using final reserve does.
It depends on how serious you consider a mayday due to fuel is.

I just find it odd that we take into account contingency fuel with regard to trip fuel which basicly covers for planning inaccuracy (wind, flightlevel, etc). But when we then calculate alternate fuel we pretend that these inaccuracies do not exist.