737Jock

I have expressed my opinion regarding the 20 minute holding capability to management! if that is what you are asking?

LYKA

FWIW there is no regulation that stipulates you must plan to add :20 fuel to flights inbound to the LON TMA. It does say if ATC says "no delay expected", you can expect to hold for up to :20. I believe howev that ATC will try and give you a delay estimate.

PENKO

Look, as a humble line pilot I am slightly out of my depth discussing flight planning policy. And so are you, may I politely add. I can only imagine that planning contingency upon contingency , because that's what a diversion is, a contingency, was not deemed necessary, maybe taking into consideration that you still have 30 minutes of fuel in your tanks after the diversion. I am not treating this subject lightly, I do understand your objections don't get me wrong. But I do think some people are very randomly cavalier with the amount of fuel they lift up.

Where do you draw the line? This is just the fuel we are discussing. Some would say that two engines are not enough...some would want four wings.

PENKO

Thanks for the clarification LYKA, that's just the way I have always understood it.

LYKA

I'm sure you are aware, but FWIW, our Company plans diversion at LRC. As you know, our day-to-day CI is lower than that. On the Airbus, when you divert it will revert to the entered CI. Of course, you always have the option of using CI0 should you feel. So, in our company you may have more margin than you thought.

737Jock

I'm just expressing my opinion as a line pilot Penko, trying to have a discussion. I don't claim to have the data required to determine what is neccessary regarding fuel planning. I'm just presenting my views on what I see on various plogs. What I see regarding trip fuel is very accurate, what I see regarding alternate fuel is in my opinion questionable flightlevels and routings. But we don't fly these routes normally so I really have no idea, I sometimes just wonder if it isn't a bit overoptimistic. On the other hand I have also seen some routes that seem overestimated.

With regard to 20 min holding, the AIC regarding this fuel in the london tma has been removed and reinstated several times over history. This gives me the idea that the CAA assumes that this information has been filtered into the airlines fuel policies.
The information that this AIC is based on, is still present in an ATC document, so I don't think that withdrawal of the AIC means the information that was contained therein is no longer valid.

You ask why an engine failure should or should not be considered, you yourself mentioned a flap/slat malfunction on a short runway. Possibilities are endless and can never be planned for completely. But everyday we take engine failures into account, be it takeoff alternates, overweight landings and briefings. Is it really such an abnormal thing to consider?

On top of that when I divert to an alternate with a VOR approach, I imagine I would fly a bit more conservatively then I maybe normally would as fuel is approaching final reserve.

Just my 2 cents.

LYKA

Perhaps it's down to interpretation, but the AIC never did say operators should plan an extra :20 fuel - some have chosen to interpret it this way. What it did say is, in-flight plan to arrive with CMR, and if told no delay, expect. :20 round the hold.

9.G

it sounds like an internal issue. I know there was a notice bout 20 mins for LHR but it's gone. As for alt fuel:
Alternate fuel which shall:
(a) include:
(i) Fuel for a missed approach from the applicable MDA/DH at the destination aerodrome to missed approach altitude, taking into account the complete missed approach procedure; and
(ii) Fuel for climb from missed approach altitude to cruising level/altitude, taking into account the expected departure routing; and
(iii) Fuel for cruise from top of climb to top of descent, taking into account the expected routing; and
(iv) Fuel for descent from top of descent to the point where the approach is initiated, taking into account the expected arrival procedure; and
(v) Fuel for executing an approach and landing at the destination alternate aerodrome selected in accordance with EU-OPS 1.295

737Jock

For clarification, if the plog gives me for example EMA as an alternate my approach to extra fuel is different.
I'm not loading fuel without due consideration. If I was I don't think I would be discussing fuel policy here.

LYKA

Yes, but the risk of diversion vs the risk of delay should be treated differently IMHO.

In practice for many flights, the risk of going to the alternate is low and the alternate airport merely satisfies a regulatory requirement. Every flight we operate always has a risk of diversion, but we must temper our pilot paranoia over a diversion, against running the business. You cannot eliminate all diversions. Diversions are a cost of doing business, but we cannot pile on the fuel "just in case", believing we will avoid diversions. Diversions have associated costs, yes but the fuel carriage costs can be many times higher than all the diversion costs.

PENKO

My point about being a line pilot was just to put my words in the proper context. I agree with you that we do not have much experience with textbook diversions, i.e. a go around followed by an immediate diversion. However on the few diversions I've had, fuel burn was not really a factor and ATC was very very helpful after some prompting, giving direct routes to the FAF.

I do take on board your point about possible inaccuracies in the alternate fuel calculation, but as pilots we also hold a lot of the cards in our hands. Don't be afraid to assert your position as a captain. If you do not get from ATC what you want, throw out a PAN if you think their dithering might lead you below Final Reserve. Sometimes ATC are bound by certain protocols or airport managers who are slow to provide information regarding the acceptance of your diversion. Once you throw out a PAN, they will gladly co-operate and you become their number one priority. Use the system as it should be used.

737Jock

Sure but my opinion is that as soon as you have to throw out Pan's or Mayday's due to fuel something has gone wrong during fuel planning. Or at least should be looked at very closely.

Part of discussing this is just to expand on my own knowledge. I think it is interesting to see what other people think.

With regard to alternate fuel. The AIC that is reffered to in post 2, and most recently was called 045/2009, also states the following:
Its all open to interpretation and often it can be read differently as mindsets vary.

I'm not afraid to use a Pan or a Mayday. I have never done a textbook diversion as you described either, not in real-life not in the sim. Would be interesting though for an LOE.

In the end as pilots we are ultimately responsible for the fuel planning, so I give it careful consideration. Maybe you feel its too conservative, but at least its reasoned

de facto

LYKA
Agree 100%

BOAC

Well, we 'lost' the topic early on and found ourselves in an in-company 'slanging match' which is a shame, and it appears that no-one really thinks that EUOPS fuel planning regs need to be changed as far as I can make out, which must be the message from this topic. I am surprised in view of all the screaming and yelling we have seen.

Regarding 'contingency fuel' on alt fuel - yes, by all means apply it - it is sensible, but remember 5% of 1000kg is.........50kg, probably 'lost' in the 'rounding up' and other things that happen, and as PENKO says, you will have a ballpark 30 mins at the end anyway. If not, you shout.

When we analyse all the froth and bother we have seen, we see that very few a/c actually do not have 'enough' fuel at the end of a flight and most have an excess while no-one has said they have actually had their 'extra' seriously questioned. Thus, in my opinion, EUOPS works.. Anyone disagree?

9.G

If one departed with flight plan fuel and diverted to the alternate then final reserve+contingency is the required amount of fuel one should have upon touch down at the alternate. If things didn't work out as planned then it's only final reserve. So what's the problem? There's a call such as minimum fuel before one screams MAY DAY or even PAN PAN PAN.

MINIMUM FUEL
The term used to describe a situation in which an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where little or no delay can be accepted.

NOTE: This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates that an emergency situation is possible, should any undue delay occur.

No harm in advising ATC of a min fuel as a heads up.

BOAC

- actually there isn't in the context of this thread. - have to keep on saying this - "as long as you understand it will have practically no effect in Europe." My ATC friends tell me the most likely response is "Are you declaring an emergency?" (as in PAN/MAYDAY.) If the answer is negative, another sup of tea and get on with the other a/c and you take your turn.

Sciolistes

BOAC,

ICAO standard is now not to call PAN, but to use the "Minimum Fuel" phraseology as 9G stated. I'm sure Europe should be complying this this.

9.G

sorry I've used old definition. new one reads:

Effective 15 Nov 2012: ----
MINIMUM FUEL
The term used to describe a situation in which an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where the flight is committed to land at a specific aerodrome and no additional delay can be accepted.

That doesn't preclude from calling a may day, of course.

BOAC

Sciolistes- thanks for that - that crept up on me. Do you have a reference please?

The last I saw was "It should be noted that Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a “MINIMUM FUEL” and I was not aware that all EUOPS countries had adopted this call (I am aware of Doc4444)?. I had noted that there is no longer any usage of PAN regarding fuel shortage in the amendment, simply MAYDAY - have all UK airlines changed their SOPs now?

The main lesson, whatever, is that pilots should NOT assume any priority on declaration of MF in Europe.

9.G

IN-FLIGHT FUEL MANAGEMENT

9.1 The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel.

NOTE: The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
9.2 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel.

NOTE: This is an emergency and the aircraft shall be given priority over other traffic in the landing sequence. The aircraft will be committed to a landing, as in the event of any delay or a go-around, there may be insufficient fuel remaining for a safe landing
9.3 Standard Phraseology

9.3.1 The standard phraseology shall be used in a MINIMUM FUEL or FUEL EMERGENCY event is as follows:

Pilot transmission

(c/s) MINIMUM FUEL

Controller transmission

ROGER [NO DELAY EXPECTED or EXPECT (delay information)]

Pilot transmission

(c/s) MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL

Controller transmission

(c/s) MAYDAY FUEL ROGER

NOTE: (c/s - Aircraft callsign)