Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

A320 Go-Around Fuel 2nd approach.

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

A320 Go-Around Fuel 2nd approach.

Old 26th Feb 2017, 10:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 174.79*E
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A320 Go-Around Fuel 2nd approach.

I'm relatively new on the A320, so hence this question.

Assuming I was landing at Max landing weight 64.5K, CFM engines and a go-around was executed at DA. How much fuel would I require approx, to climb straight ahead to 2000ft and manoeuvere for a 10 mile final for a second ILS assuming ISA+10 flight conditions.

If there are any TRI/TRE's who could answer this question it would be mightily helpful.
C152R is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2017, 16:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi C152R,

My old Flight Planning diversion fuel tables show diversion fuel for 40 air miles, climbing to FL 100 using 522 kgs and taking 12 mins.
60 miles = 676kgs / 16 mins. Correction = +20 kgs for 65 tons. The table shows approx extra 40 kgs for every extra 1 min of cruise time.

Only climbing to 2,000 ft would use more.

For Engine Out: Assume it takes 3 mins to climb to 2,000 from DA (700 ft per min ROC) & 1 min to accelerate (4 mins Distance about 12 miles @ 3m/min)
1 min to turn downwind (3 miles), 3 mins to fly abeam touch down, 3 mins to 10 mile final (22 miles), 1 min to turn onto final (3 miles), 4 mins to touchdown (10 miles) 16 mins total / 50 miles.

I'd guess you'd use 522+20 (weight correction) +160 (time correction)
Total = about 700 kgs.

For both engines operating: Climb to 2,000, accelerate to clean about 1 min (3 miles).
Similar flying pattern to above gives time = 11 mins / 32 miles.
So something less than 542 kgs (say 500 kgs).

Last edited by Goldenrivett; 27th Feb 2017 at 09:20. Reason: typos & realisation OP's Q was for both engines operating
Goldenrivett is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 07:43
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 174.79*E
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A320 fuel 2nd approach.

Hi

I would have thought I would have had more responses but thanks for the ones already received.
C152R is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 08:32
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 380
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm on the higher landing weight 320 with IAE's and I wouldn't expect 400kgs unless it were a visual circuit at 1500 feet, perhaps I'm too conservative though.

I would have thought for the sort of circuit you're talking about 600kgs would be more in line.
Willie Nelson is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 09:05
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ipswich
Posts: 66
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by C152R
I'm relatively new on the A320, so hence this question.

Assuming I was landing at Max landing weight 64.5K, CFM engines and a go-around was executed at DA. How much fuel would I require approx, to climb straight ahead to 2000ft and manoeuvere for a 10 mile final for a second ILS assuming ISA+10 flight conditions.

If there are any TRI/TRE's who could answer this question it would be mightily helpful.
Seeing as not a lot of people have answered for you I'll have a go. 400-600 kgs seems to be about right.

Why did you want a tri/tre to answer your question?
binzer is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 10:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not a trainer, however, 400 kgs would be only sufficient for a direct visual circuit back, which is usually not possible. For the normal pattern of missed approach, vectors around the airport and a new approach i would expect at least 600kgs.
Denti is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 11:23
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sale
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Approx 500kg on average I would say.
At Malaga last year we were vectored back round for a 32 mile final burning about 1000kg.
Field In Sight is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 12:42
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 292
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I normally plan for 700 kg fuel for a second approach. I was based at LGW a few years and was on occation asked by ATC to go around due seperation. The burn was around 700 everytime.
But then - this was being vectored back and not an immediate return.
12 years Airbus experience - just a normal line captain :-)
Fokkerdriver is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2017, 07:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Posts: 436
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It takes 700kg in a 321 at a regional base for a g/a and radar without delay, so I assume a bit less for a 320.
Capt Scribble is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2017, 07:24
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,432
Received 207 Likes on 69 Posts
I use 700kg for a comfortable radar vector back for an instrument approach, 400kg if I expect a visual circuit.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2017, 08:41
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,624
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Largest I've had was at Nice 22 that was over 1000kgs. Least is 400kgs or so but we were very light and it was only 9 minutes from go around to landing with quite a tight radar vectored circuit to an 8 mile final.
EGPFlyer is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2017, 10:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 686
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
All else being equal after a missed approach due e.g. runway occupied, would you normally prefer a quick visual circuit to land or less hurried radar circuit back to 10 nm final?
Dan Dare is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2017, 11:26
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,624
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Radar vectors would be preferable as the workload would be lower and it would give a chance to make a PA etc to the passengers. That being said though, if fuel is tight, you might need to make a visual circuit in order to maintain the option of a diversion with a landing above final reserve should you go around again.
EGPFlyer is online now  
Old 12th Mar 2017, 20:59
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S.O.E.
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
700 kg from a GA at the minima and full ILS recovery (up to ~ 40 track miles) is a good figure.


Conservative 500 kg for a visual circuit (start of take-off to landing) using standard Airbus SOPs. Can come down to 400 kg if the crosswind turn is expedited.


Hope that helps
Dale Hardale is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2017, 07:17
  #15 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Same experience here.

In 2012 I managed to jumpseat 102 base traninig circuits, being the 3rd set of eyes and running the paperwork. The fuel used for one single circuit is 350 kgs. Conditions:
. A319 empty with median 8t of fuel (TOW approx 50 t)
. TOGA takeoff, turn downwind at 600 ft
. downwind leg at 1500 AAL in 1+F
. base inside 4 NM from THR

My conclusion is that when flying the line 400 kgs for G/A is not achievable. The least thirsty was one in LCA, with an immediate turn and VIS from 2000 to come back, 440 kgs as per FDM records. Gods were smiling there, probably well amused by how I mismanaged the first approach.

Average 600/700 over about 7 events for which I managed to get FDM readouts.

An eye-opener was A321 close to MLW in Greece, where due to turn speed restrictions 1+F was kept, and boy, 1100 were gone by the time we had reached the off-field holding fix. ATC procedural control - marked on my awareness list from that day on.

Last edited by FlightDetent; 13th Mar 2017 at 07:31.
FlightDetent is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.