Fuel Planning - a new thread.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Planning - a new thread.
Beagle – I am not sure exactly what you were asking in the Dutch TV thread regarding 'contingency', but I thought it better to start a new thread on fuel planning to avoid pollution of the others.
In 1998 (I think) the CAA carried out a review of companies’ fuel policies in particular relating to arrival at ‘busy’ London airports, but obviously applicable to other places. I cannot find either my copy of the CAA SOC nor find any links to any AICs on this, so the ‘advice’ appears to have been withdrawn – wonder why? I will carry on searching my ‘archives’.
This extract from an old CHIRP, and my highlighting
CAA Special Objectives Check (SOC) AIC 83/2008 (Pink 149
Page 6; Para 5.2.6 Recommendation 3: Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that, as interpreted by fleet managers, training and line pilots, these do not result in a perception that aircraft may be permitted to depart with fuel amounts less than must be calculated in accordance with formulae specified in the operations manual (or equivalent document). Where such formulae are known not to address all circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen, pragmatic guidance should be specified to ensure that appropriate adjustments are made. This review might be managed through a schedule applied by the Operations Quality Manager so as to ensure that company policy endures with time.
The CAA SOC also addressed the issue of delays:
Page 4; Para 4.3.4 Recommendation 2: Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
NB This could logically be construed to allow you to increase trip fuel by a minimum of 20 minutes inbound London majors (but see below for Nigels…………….)
Whilst an operator might elect to use day-to-day arrival delay statistics to justify not complying with the current AIC recommendation for entry into UK airspace, it should be remembered that two of the major UK airports in Southeast England have only single runways. Some of you might remember the challenge presented to the UK ATC system in the wake of the extended closure of Stansted Airport following the Korean Airlines B747 accident. Those operators who elect not to carry the recommended holding fuel for entry into the UK might wish to reflect on the effect of a runway closure or similar disruption to the inbound traffic flow when risk assessing their sector fuel policy.
Also, a reminder - in a situation similar to that in report (3) above, there is no benefit in forewarning ATC of an impending low fuel situation. ATC will only react to a PAN/MAYDAY; otherwise equal priority will be given to all other aircraft.
A similar (now untraceable!!?? – I understand there was ‘pressure’ from airlines) AIC pink warned pilots that ‘No Delay’ in the UK meant a max of 20 mins holding and recommended crews allowed for this in fuel planning inbound to ‘Londons’.
The CAA position (was) is?? that Contingency is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN for unexpected events, and cannot be PLANNED for EXPECTED holding
For those interested, a BA fleet manager (name redacted to save embarrassment but available at the right price
) issued this to all Airbus trainers around the 2000’s.
"The CAA AIC 36/98 states "no delay expected means you can expect to hold for 20 minutes". Understandably some pilots believe that this demands that they must uplift 20 minutes of extra fuel. However the BA Fuel Policy (which is approved by the CAA) states that SWORD/ CIRRUS flight plan fuel should be carried unless there are sound operational or economic reasons for not doing so, when consideration should be given to the 3 Month Route Statistics. PS. BA will eventually introduce Statistical Contingency Fuel. The aim of this will be to achieve a 99% success rate at arrivals at destination with at least Diversion, and Reserve."
In 1998 (I think) the CAA carried out a review of companies’ fuel policies in particular relating to arrival at ‘busy’ London airports, but obviously applicable to other places. I cannot find either my copy of the CAA SOC nor find any links to any AICs on this, so the ‘advice’ appears to have been withdrawn – wonder why? I will carry on searching my ‘archives’.
This extract from an old CHIRP, and my highlighting
CAA Special Objectives Check (SOC) AIC 83/2008 (Pink 149
Page 6; Para 5.2.6 Recommendation 3: Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that, as interpreted by fleet managers, training and line pilots, these do not result in a perception that aircraft may be permitted to depart with fuel amounts less than must be calculated in accordance with formulae specified in the operations manual (or equivalent document). Where such formulae are known not to address all circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen, pragmatic guidance should be specified to ensure that appropriate adjustments are made. This review might be managed through a schedule applied by the Operations Quality Manager so as to ensure that company policy endures with time.
The CAA SOC also addressed the issue of delays:
Page 4; Para 4.3.4 Recommendation 2: Operators should review their fuel policies to ensure that adequate provision is made either through their computer programs or by adjustments made by aircraft commanders or dispatchers (acting in accordance with guidance or instructions specified in operations manuals) for the Trip Fuel to include, where appropriate, fuel for use in holding prior to commencing the approach when there is reason to believe that this will occur. An example of such circumstances can be found in AIC 36/1998 (Pink 170).
NB This could logically be construed to allow you to increase trip fuel by a minimum of 20 minutes inbound London majors (but see below for Nigels…………….)
Whilst an operator might elect to use day-to-day arrival delay statistics to justify not complying with the current AIC recommendation for entry into UK airspace, it should be remembered that two of the major UK airports in Southeast England have only single runways. Some of you might remember the challenge presented to the UK ATC system in the wake of the extended closure of Stansted Airport following the Korean Airlines B747 accident. Those operators who elect not to carry the recommended holding fuel for entry into the UK might wish to reflect on the effect of a runway closure or similar disruption to the inbound traffic flow when risk assessing their sector fuel policy.
Also, a reminder - in a situation similar to that in report (3) above, there is no benefit in forewarning ATC of an impending low fuel situation. ATC will only react to a PAN/MAYDAY; otherwise equal priority will be given to all other aircraft.
A similar (now untraceable!!?? – I understand there was ‘pressure’ from airlines) AIC pink warned pilots that ‘No Delay’ in the UK meant a max of 20 mins holding and recommended crews allowed for this in fuel planning inbound to ‘Londons’.
The CAA position (was) is?? that Contingency is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN for unexpected events, and cannot be PLANNED for EXPECTED holding
For those interested, a BA fleet manager (name redacted to save embarrassment but available at the right price
) issued this to all Airbus trainers around the 2000’s."The CAA AIC 36/98 states "no delay expected means you can expect to hold for 20 minutes". Understandably some pilots believe that this demands that they must uplift 20 minutes of extra fuel. However the BA Fuel Policy (which is approved by the CAA) states that SWORD/ CIRRUS flight plan fuel should be carried unless there are sound operational or economic reasons for not doing so, when consideration should be given to the 3 Month Route Statistics. PS. BA will eventually introduce Statistical Contingency Fuel. The aim of this will be to achieve a 99% success rate at arrivals at destination with at least Diversion, and Reserve."
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found the AIC - AIC 82/2003 (Pink 58)
AEROPLANES INBOUND TO THE UK WITH FUEL RESERVES APPROACHING MINIMUM
1 Incidents of crews reporting an inability to hold in the vicinity of their destination aerodrome prior to landing because of a shortage
of fuel have indicated a lack of understanding by operators and crews of the situation existing in busy UK terminal areas.
2 A number of aeroplanes appear to be approaching the UK with no more than minimum reserves of fuel. Aeroplane commanders who determine, in flight, that their aeroplane will have little or no fuel above that which their company specifies as minimum reserves, should establish that the weather conditions at the destination and alternate aerodromes fulfil specified criteria and that no delay is expected before commencing an approach.
3 The information concerning delays that is passed to the crew by the controller is the best available at the time and takes account of the expected volume of traffic at the aeroplane's estimated arrival time. If the information available to the controller indicates a reasonably easy flow of traffic, and Estimated Approach Times (EAT) are not being issued for the destination aerodrome, the response to a request about delay will be 'No delay expected'.
3.1 'No delay expected' means in these circumstances:
'Do not anticipate being required to remain in a holding pattern longer than 20 minutes before commencing an approach'.
3.2 Where a delay greater than 20 minutes is expected, the controller will pass an EAT. When delays are expected to be less than 20 minutes, controllers will, when requested, give a general indication of the expected delay.
4 Traffic situations in the terminal areas can change very quickly even though 'No delay expected' will often mean precisely that, crews should expect that on occasions some holding will be required before they are fitted into the final approach pattern.
5 It is important, therefore, that operators and crews should take a realistic view of the amount of fuel required, to satisfy the minimum fuel overhead destination requirements.
6 Crews should plan to arrive overhead a destination aerodrome with, at the very least, fuel sufficient to:
(a) Make an approach to land; and
(b) carry out a missed approach; and
(c) fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry out the subsequent approach and landing; and
(d) for aeroplanes with reciprocating engines, fuel to fly for 45 minutes; or for turbo-jet or turbo-prop aeroplanes, fuel to hold for
30 minutes at 1500 ft above aerodrome elevation in ISA calculated with the estimated landing mass on arrival at the alternate or the destination, when no alternate is required.
7 When the planned alternate aerodrome is in the same busy area as the destination, for instance Heathrow and Gatwick, the track miles on which the fuel requirement for flying to the alternate is calculated should be realistically assessed taking account of the extended routing which can reasonably be expected during busy periods.
8 Pilots should also be aware that although every effort will be made to expedite their arrival, a call such as 'Fuel Emergency' has no status in the UK and ATC cannot give priority to an aircraft with a shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared.
9 A radio call prefixed by MAYDAY for distress or PAN for urgency will ensure priority handling but the aeroplane's actual fuel state should reflect the seriousness of the emergency call. A commander should only make such a call when he believes the aircraft to be in danger, not because the fuel state has fallen below the amount needed to comply with formula given above.
10 For the future, it is not anticipated that any special procedure will be introduced for fuel emergencies but the Authority is considering ways of providing more accurate forecasting of delays.
Still searching for the CAA SOC on fuel planning.
AEROPLANES INBOUND TO THE UK WITH FUEL RESERVES APPROACHING MINIMUM
1 Incidents of crews reporting an inability to hold in the vicinity of their destination aerodrome prior to landing because of a shortage
of fuel have indicated a lack of understanding by operators and crews of the situation existing in busy UK terminal areas.
2 A number of aeroplanes appear to be approaching the UK with no more than minimum reserves of fuel. Aeroplane commanders who determine, in flight, that their aeroplane will have little or no fuel above that which their company specifies as minimum reserves, should establish that the weather conditions at the destination and alternate aerodromes fulfil specified criteria and that no delay is expected before commencing an approach.
3 The information concerning delays that is passed to the crew by the controller is the best available at the time and takes account of the expected volume of traffic at the aeroplane's estimated arrival time. If the information available to the controller indicates a reasonably easy flow of traffic, and Estimated Approach Times (EAT) are not being issued for the destination aerodrome, the response to a request about delay will be 'No delay expected'.
3.1 'No delay expected' means in these circumstances:
'Do not anticipate being required to remain in a holding pattern longer than 20 minutes before commencing an approach'.
3.2 Where a delay greater than 20 minutes is expected, the controller will pass an EAT. When delays are expected to be less than 20 minutes, controllers will, when requested, give a general indication of the expected delay.
4 Traffic situations in the terminal areas can change very quickly even though 'No delay expected' will often mean precisely that, crews should expect that on occasions some holding will be required before they are fitted into the final approach pattern.
5 It is important, therefore, that operators and crews should take a realistic view of the amount of fuel required, to satisfy the minimum fuel overhead destination requirements.
6 Crews should plan to arrive overhead a destination aerodrome with, at the very least, fuel sufficient to:
(a) Make an approach to land; and
(b) carry out a missed approach; and
(c) fly to an alternate aerodrome, carry out the subsequent approach and landing; and
(d) for aeroplanes with reciprocating engines, fuel to fly for 45 minutes; or for turbo-jet or turbo-prop aeroplanes, fuel to hold for
30 minutes at 1500 ft above aerodrome elevation in ISA calculated with the estimated landing mass on arrival at the alternate or the destination, when no alternate is required.
7 When the planned alternate aerodrome is in the same busy area as the destination, for instance Heathrow and Gatwick, the track miles on which the fuel requirement for flying to the alternate is calculated should be realistically assessed taking account of the extended routing which can reasonably be expected during busy periods.
8 Pilots should also be aware that although every effort will be made to expedite their arrival, a call such as 'Fuel Emergency' has no status in the UK and ATC cannot give priority to an aircraft with a shortage of fuel unless an emergency is declared.
9 A radio call prefixed by MAYDAY for distress or PAN for urgency will ensure priority handling but the aeroplane's actual fuel state should reflect the seriousness of the emergency call. A commander should only make such a call when he believes the aircraft to be in danger, not because the fuel state has fallen below the amount needed to comply with formula given above.
10 For the future, it is not anticipated that any special procedure will be introduced for fuel emergencies but the Authority is considering ways of providing more accurate forecasting of delays.
Still searching for the CAA SOC on fuel planning.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1cor.pdf
Pink AIC no longer valid, however the CAA manual of air traffic services states this:
So any delay up to 20 minutes is still no delay.
Pink AIC no longer valid, however the CAA manual of air traffic services states this:
16 Expected Approach Time
16.1 Approach Control shall calculate EATs for aircraft likely to be delayed before commencing an intermediate approach.
16.2 Unless otherwise instructed controllers shall pass EATs to aircraft with whom they are in contact. EATs shall not normally be issued when the delay is expected to be less than 20 minutes. The statement “no delay expected” is only to be used if it genuinely reflects the situation. However, at the request of a pilot, controllers are to give a general indication of the likely delay based on the information available at that time.
16.1 Approach Control shall calculate EATs for aircraft likely to be delayed before commencing an intermediate approach.
16.2 Unless otherwise instructed controllers shall pass EATs to aircraft with whom they are in contact. EATs shall not normally be issued when the delay is expected to be less than 20 minutes. The statement “no delay expected” is only to be used if it genuinely reflects the situation. However, at the request of a pilot, controllers are to give a general indication of the likely delay based on the information available at that time.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Dec 2012 at 16:29.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA position (was) is?? that Contingency is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN for unexpected events, and cannot be PLANNED for EXPECTED holding
Cause how can anybody statistically determine unexpected events. For statistics to work something needs to happen on a regular basis or should at least be expected. Thus unexpected events can't be determined statistically.
Ergo, its just beancounter language for reducing fuel loads based on thin air.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Dec 2012 at 16:54.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it matter, the air traffic controllers read it. Who gives out EAT's? Who sends you into the hold stating "no delay".
Its clear that the air traffic rules in the UK still assume 20 minutes of holding to be "no delay".
In my company the removal of the pink AIC regarding 20 minutes holding was announced the day it was removed. However the rule from the air traffic services manual is clear. No delay means up to 20 minutes holding!!!
So the removal of the pink AIC is no reason to adjust fuel planning.
Its clear that the air traffic rules in the UK still assume 20 minutes of holding to be "no delay".
In my company the removal of the pink AIC regarding 20 minutes holding was announced the day it was removed. However the rule from the air traffic services manual is clear. No delay means up to 20 minutes holding!!!
So the removal of the pink AIC is no reason to adjust fuel planning.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Dec 2012 at 16:55.
Statistical contingency seems to be cover more than most arrivals I've done into LHR/LGW over the years. It also avoids landing with stupid amounts of fuel at 0500Z on a CAVOK and "no delay" day on say, a SIN-LHR ( 5% plus is probably a landing fuel of 10-12 tonnes on something like a 744 ....
The only trick with SCF on the plan is recognising when it might not be appropriate (fog, snow, TS, strong winds?), and isn't that decision covered by airmanship......ah, sorry, hush my mouth???.
The only trick with SCF on the plan is recognising when it might not be appropriate (fog, snow, TS, strong winds?), and isn't that decision covered by airmanship......ah, sorry, hush my mouth???.
Last edited by wiggy; 31st Dec 2012 at 19:47.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA manual of air traffic services states this:
Low Fuel Holding Procedures and Associated RTF Phraseology
General
RT phraseology "MINIMUM FUEL" does not imply that an ACFT is in an emergency. Therefore, ATC are not required to give priority to pilots who declare "MINIMUM FUEL".
Within the UK, EATs are only required to be issued whenever the anticipated delay to commence the initial approach segment of an instrument approach procedure is expected to be equal to or greater than 20 MIN.
If in any doubt as to whether or not airborne holding is needed, pilots shall seek clarification from ATC.
UK Procedures and RTF Phraseology
When airborne holding is needed and the delay is expected to be less than that requiring the issuing of EATs, controllers shall explicitly instruct pilots to hold at the required exact reporting point and provide the pilot with an estimate of the delay.
The RT phrase "NO DELAY" shall be only used when holding is not expected.
Controllers shall issue EATs whenever the anticipated delay to commence the initial approach segment of an instrument approach procedure is expected to be equal to or greater than 20 MIN.
When EATs are required, they shall be passed sufficiently in advance to permit pilots to plan their flight paths accordingly.
General
RT phraseology "MINIMUM FUEL" does not imply that an ACFT is in an emergency. Therefore, ATC are not required to give priority to pilots who declare "MINIMUM FUEL".
Within the UK, EATs are only required to be issued whenever the anticipated delay to commence the initial approach segment of an instrument approach procedure is expected to be equal to or greater than 20 MIN.
If in any doubt as to whether or not airborne holding is needed, pilots shall seek clarification from ATC.
UK Procedures and RTF Phraseology
When airborne holding is needed and the delay is expected to be less than that requiring the issuing of EATs, controllers shall explicitly instruct pilots to hold at the required exact reporting point and provide the pilot with an estimate of the delay.
The RT phrase "NO DELAY" shall be only used when holding is not expected.
Controllers shall issue EATs whenever the anticipated delay to commence the initial approach segment of an instrument approach procedure is expected to be equal to or greater than 20 MIN.
When EATs are required, they shall be passed sufficiently in advance to permit pilots to plan their flight paths accordingly.
Last edited by Denti; 31st Dec 2012 at 20:10.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this link from the 'KLM' thread on R&N should also be here. NB the document linked is an 'advance copy' but is in my opinion an excellent document for all to read and as a discussion document.
It will require some serious time to absorb.
A few 'instant' observations:
FAR121.619 (dispensation with alternate at planning stage) does not use the 6 hr flight time limit of EUOPS
The document (at 4.2) re-inforces the need to include expected holding in TRIP fuel, not 'extra' or 'contingency'
Thorough coverage of the statistical contingency method is available for those who do not know of it.
One thing evident in the concepts is that the use of VMC as a long-stop at a destination airfield does in theory require competence in a visual manoeuvre and it is becoming apparent that we may not be able to rely on this with the newer generation of pilots.
I am also coming to the conclusion that perhaps the whole concept of 'contingency fuel' needs to be overhauled. It seems already that in a few airlines contingency is acquiring a somewhat blurred status which sort of looks at expected delays etc rather than just the 'unknown' factors.
- yes, I hope so too, but why not make it a little clearer? The AIC referred to was clear. The BA quote I posted suggests that perhaps it was not in favour with management, and there again we have this perceived 'pressure' on crews. Your (sensible) look to see if '20 mins' to your CFP is added will, I bet, find not. Should it be?
- in fact it was considered to matter, since the whole reason for the AIC was the arival (in 1998 I think) of 3 'foreign' aircraft in the London TMA all on PAN calls short of fuel at more or less the same time after holding.
Statistical contingency seems to work reasonably well, but I note, wiggy, that you have consciously or subconsciously included the words a "no delay" day along with contingency. Right or not? Lastly your last para
- sums it all up, doesn't it? Does one perceive undue 'pressure' from above in exercising that awful word, airmanship?
It will require some serious time to absorb.
A few 'instant' observations:
FAR121.619 (dispensation with alternate at planning stage) does not use the 6 hr flight time limit of EUOPS
The document (at 4.2) re-inforces the need to include expected holding in TRIP fuel, not 'extra' or 'contingency'
Thorough coverage of the statistical contingency method is available for those who do not know of it.
One thing evident in the concepts is that the use of VMC as a long-stop at a destination airfield does in theory require competence in a visual manoeuvre and it is becoming apparent that we may not be able to rely on this with the newer generation of pilots.
I am also coming to the conclusion that perhaps the whole concept of 'contingency fuel' needs to be overhauled. It seems already that in a few airlines contingency is acquiring a somewhat blurred status which sort of looks at expected delays etc rather than just the 'unknown' factors.
Originally Posted by Denti
I hope they read at least their route manual.
Originally Posted by Denti
However, taking no extra to busy airports is, well, not entirely wise, doesn't really matter if it is london, frankfurt, paris, madrid or any other busy airport
Statistical contingency seems to work reasonably well, but I note, wiggy, that you have consciously or subconsciously included the words a "no delay" day along with contingency. Right or not? Lastly your last para
The only trick with SCF on the plan is recognising when it might not be appropriate (fog, snow, TS, strong winds?), and isn't that decision covered by airmanship......ah, sorry, hush my mouth???.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also avoids landing with stupid amounts of fuel at 0500Z on a CAVOK and "no delay" day on say, a SIN-LHR ( 5% plus is probably a landing fuel of 10-12 tonnes on something like a 744 ....
I have no data but in shorthaul ops statistical data could point to greater amounts of contingency fuel needing to be loaded than the standard 5min or 5%.
BTW, it seems that FR and EZY are both using 5% contingency as the standard, and will only go 3% ERA if required due to weight constrictions (off course 5min being the minimum).
Contingency fuel on shorthaul flights does not give a whole lot of extra margin, and I have never seen it lead to landing with stupid amounts of fuel.
But for clarity all aircraft use different amounts of fuel, so for me it's not entirely clear what endurance 10T of fuel will give on a 747. Could we express it in time please?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only trick with SCF on the plan is recognising when it might not be appropriate (fog, snow, TS, strong winds?), and isn't that decision covered by airmanship......ah, sorry, hush my mouth???.
What if a busy destination closes on a nice day and everybody starts diverting to the nearest alternate which is planned for in the most direct routing?
Maybe not a problem for that longhaul flight with 5% contingency, different matter for shorthaul imho...
My main concern is actually not contingency fuel, but realistic alternate fuel! The amount of fuel used routing to the alternate was what bit those Ryanair flights in the ass.
FR2054 landed with 1029kgs final reserve 1104kgs.
FR5998 landed with 1160kgs final reserve 1119kgs.
FR2054 plog was 5887kgs they took 6500kgs. 600kg extra. Diverted at 2900kgs.
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra. Diverted at 2900kgs with minimum 2664kgs.
FR5998 landed with 1160kgs final reserve 1119kgs.
FR2054 plog was 5887kgs they took 6500kgs. 600kg extra. Diverted at 2900kgs.
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra. Diverted at 2900kgs with minimum 2664kgs.
This can happen to anyone! But how realistic are our alternate fuels?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 737jock
Contingency fuel on shorthaul flights does not give a whole lot of extra margin
Last edited by BOAC; 1st Jan 2013 at 11:53.
Honest question 737jock, sine we fly for the same outfit: how many times have you landed in London Gatwick with less than Final Reserve+alternate?
Sure, no delay may mean anything up to 20 minutes but I have regularly taken plog fuel and RARELY even approached landing below FInal Reserve+alternate. What is the fuss all about?
Take extra fuel if you think you need it, like during rush hour, no matter what the definition of 'no delay' is.
Sure, no delay may mean anything up to 20 minutes but I have regularly taken plog fuel and RARELY even approached landing below FInal Reserve+alternate. What is the fuss all about?
Take extra fuel if you think you need it, like during rush hour, no matter what the definition of 'no delay' is.
Last edited by PENKO; 1st Jan 2013 at 12:26.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PENKO - thanks for asking! I WAS hoping we could generate some serious attention on this thread to how we feel planning should happen. My personal view is that PLOGS should change now to show both contingency AND an extra item - 'holding fuel' (based on statistics if desired and zero if appropriate) and CLEARLY annotated so crews can identify the premise on which the PLOG has been constructed. I feel any apparent 'blurring' of holding into contingency will only mask the facts.
Regarding your 'how many times.....' question, I would like all those who are vociferous about company 'pressures' restricting their fuel choice to tell us all how many times they have landed BELOW that figure and how many times they have had to declare either a MAYDAY or PAN for fuel ie how many times have they ACTUALLY not had 'enough'?
Regarding your 'how many times.....' question, I would like all those who are vociferous about company 'pressures' restricting their fuel choice to tell us all how many times they have landed BELOW that figure and how many times they have had to declare either a MAYDAY or PAN for fuel ie how many times have they ACTUALLY not had 'enough'?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Mugabe
requiring the uplift of extra fuel ( EAI WAI TURB CB etc
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, my company for some time actually required us to file an ASR each and every time we landed below Final Reserve+Alternate Fuel, just to monitor the situation. I never filed a report, although I quite often took the flight plan minimum. 5% contingency and direct routings are normally quite enough to land with at least five minutes worth of dithering before things get a bit more 'interesting'.
I take the pragmatic approach. If I can't find a valid argument to load extra fuel I won't. I know taking minimum fuel has its implications and I know that that means that I will divert much sooner than my colleagues who take a few hundred kilo's extra, but that is what my company wants me to do on a normal day and I have no problems with that. However if there is any hint of trouble, I will not hesitate to 'fill her up' so to speak.
I've noticed a funny correlation. The captains who refuse to carry minimum fuel on a CAVOK day are often the ones who paradoxically:
- fly faster than econ speed
- fly lower than optimum level
- moan about fuel saving measures
- never quite 'fill her up' when they REALLY SHOULD
Now what does that tell us?
Now to come back to your point BOAC, our plogs will clearly indicate when and where extra fuel is used, if ever. Usually it is left to the crew to decide if extra fuel is needed and I prefer this to statistical planning. I prefer to have total control over the 'extra' fuel. I agree with your comment about blurring statistical fuel in the holding fuel. My company does publish fuel statistics showing how much extra fuel is actually (NOT!) needed, but very few pilots use this information.
I take the pragmatic approach. If I can't find a valid argument to load extra fuel I won't. I know taking minimum fuel has its implications and I know that that means that I will divert much sooner than my colleagues who take a few hundred kilo's extra, but that is what my company wants me to do on a normal day and I have no problems with that. However if there is any hint of trouble, I will not hesitate to 'fill her up' so to speak.
I've noticed a funny correlation. The captains who refuse to carry minimum fuel on a CAVOK day are often the ones who paradoxically:
- fly faster than econ speed
- fly lower than optimum level
- moan about fuel saving measures
- never quite 'fill her up' when they REALLY SHOULD
Now what does that tell us?
Now to come back to your point BOAC, our plogs will clearly indicate when and where extra fuel is used, if ever. Usually it is left to the crew to decide if extra fuel is needed and I prefer this to statistical planning. I prefer to have total control over the 'extra' fuel. I agree with your comment about blurring statistical fuel in the holding fuel. My company does publish fuel statistics showing how much extra fuel is actually (NOT!) needed, but very few pilots use this information.
Robert Mugabe, then those base/standard captains are wrong. The 5% is for unforeseen circumstances, period. Anyway, anti ice and turbulence are never going to cost you more be than your discretionary 300 kg (assuming you are in FR?).
Our definition of a contingency is: deviation from the planned operating conditions. There is no way they can argument that a flight plan on a CAVOK day should have the same planned burn as a flight plan on a grey winter's day. If you plan to fly into icing, then you have to plan for the extra burn.
Another question I like to ask any colleague flying with me who insists one a 'couple-a-hundred' extra for no apparent reason: are they happy to burn their alternate fuel in the destination hold when landing is assured? Usually they start huffing and puffing at this question but it shows their unrealistic expectations. Because not one of them would divert on a CAVOK day with landing assured...yet they do want extra fuel all the time.
And again, just to make it absolutely clear. I am no fuel cowboy. I am no hero. I will take as much fuel as necessary, which might quite easily mean an extra half an hour or 45 minutes when faced with thunderstorms, foreseeable operational difficulties or even operations to short runways on which you can't land with flap problems, just to name a few.
Our definition of a contingency is: deviation from the planned operating conditions. There is no way they can argument that a flight plan on a CAVOK day should have the same planned burn as a flight plan on a grey winter's day. If you plan to fly into icing, then you have to plan for the extra burn.
Another question I like to ask any colleague flying with me who insists one a 'couple-a-hundred' extra for no apparent reason: are they happy to burn their alternate fuel in the destination hold when landing is assured? Usually they start huffing and puffing at this question but it shows their unrealistic expectations. Because not one of them would divert on a CAVOK day with landing assured...yet they do want extra fuel all the time.
And again, just to make it absolutely clear. I am no fuel cowboy. I am no hero. I will take as much fuel as necessary, which might quite easily mean an extra half an hour or 45 minutes when faced with thunderstorms, foreseeable operational difficulties or even operations to short runways on which you can't land with flap problems, just to name a few.
Last edited by PENKO; 1st Jan 2013 at 14:28.