How much fuel do you carry ?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
My company's CAA approved fuel policy under JAROPS allows a flight to continue to destination with calculations showing less than reserve + diversion fuel remaining at destination, for example, so long as max delay known or EAT (expected approach time) received as long as landing assured (*) and possible to land with at least reserve fuel remaining.
At any time, if it becomes apparent that you MAY land with less than reserve fuel, then a PAN is called, and if you WILL land with less than reserve then a MAYDAY call is required.
(*) Landing assured means taking into account any forecast weather changes and aircraft system degradation plausible.
Imagine a scenario, you are holding with 1 hour of fuel on board close to an airfield with 2 runways (say LHR) with a received EAT in 15 minutes + 10 minutes for the approach, so can reasonably predict landing with 35 minutes fuel, the weather is stable with a 400ft cloudbase and 1000 metres vis, is it not better to continue to hold than to divert to somewhere with just one runway, which may be a 15 minute flight away where the weather is the same, where you would then land with 45 minutes fuel at best?
Food for thought?
My company's CAA approved fuel policy under JAROPS allows a flight to continue to destination with calculations showing less than reserve + diversion fuel remaining at destination, for example, so long as max delay known or EAT (expected approach time) received as long as landing assured (*) and possible to land with at least reserve fuel remaining.
At any time, if it becomes apparent that you MAY land with less than reserve fuel, then a PAN is called, and if you WILL land with less than reserve then a MAYDAY call is required.
(*) Landing assured means taking into account any forecast weather changes and aircraft system degradation plausible.
Imagine a scenario, you are holding with 1 hour of fuel on board close to an airfield with 2 runways (say LHR) with a received EAT in 15 minutes + 10 minutes for the approach, so can reasonably predict landing with 35 minutes fuel, the weather is stable with a 400ft cloudbase and 1000 metres vis, is it not better to continue to hold than to divert to somewhere with just one runway, which may be a 15 minute flight away where the weather is the same, where you would then land with 45 minutes fuel at best?
Food for thought?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
That doesn`t sound too smart, now does it?
If you are down to altn fuel and you divert from LHR to, say EGSS, you would end up being committed to that field. Where there`s only one runway, nobody`s expecting you, you`re not familiar with the field etc etc.
My company does allow to commit to destination, as long as you land with at least 45 min fuel. The considerations to take into account when coming to this decision are left to the commander.
How about that for common sense eh?
That doesn`t sound too smart, now does it?
If you are down to altn fuel and you divert from LHR to, say EGSS, you would end up being committed to that field. Where there`s only one runway, nobody`s expecting you, you`re not familiar with the field etc etc.
My company does allow to commit to destination, as long as you land with at least 45 min fuel. The considerations to take into account when coming to this decision are left to the commander.
How about that for common sense eh?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite simple really...when down to alternate + reserves fuel, divert.
Seat 0A,
Not familiar with the alternate? Well, as PIC you certainly should be, 'tis a company requirement where i've worked.
Alternate doesn't know you're enroute?
That is what ATC is for....
And especially for the long haul folks, to overfly a suitable enroute alternate KNOWING that you will be really short upon arrival at destimation is, in my opinion, a terminating offence...as in, find another job.
Seat 0A,
Not familiar with the alternate? Well, as PIC you certainly should be, 'tis a company requirement where i've worked.
Alternate doesn't know you're enroute?
That is what ATC is for....
And especially for the long haul folks, to overfly a suitable enroute alternate KNOWING that you will be really short upon arrival at destimation is, in my opinion, a terminating offence...as in, find another job.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
Quote <Quite simple really...when down to alternate + reserves fuel, divert>
Wrong --- It's about making command decisions armed with all the knowledge that comes from all sources available and at all times never prejudicing safety. That means that if everything is legal and sensible then commiting to your destination is both permissible and sensible from both commercial and safety viewpoints.
As has been said, diverting from a multi runway airport with fully functioning nav aids and with reasonable weather to an alternate with a single runway and similar weather when you have been passed an estimated approach time and will land with at least reserve fuel is not the best decision.
What is your problem with that logic, exactly?
Quote <Quite simple really...when down to alternate + reserves fuel, divert>
Wrong --- It's about making command decisions armed with all the knowledge that comes from all sources available and at all times never prejudicing safety. That means that if everything is legal and sensible then commiting to your destination is both permissible and sensible from both commercial and safety viewpoints.
As has been said, diverting from a multi runway airport with fully functioning nav aids and with reasonable weather to an alternate with a single runway and similar weather when you have been passed an estimated approach time and will land with at least reserve fuel is not the best decision.
What is your problem with that logic, exactly?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
I would only divert in the circumstances you describe IF
the destination airfield could not give me an EAT due to unknown delays - blocked runway for example
or
the EAT was too long to wait (happened to me last week)
Going to an alternate say 20 mins away, when you have an EAT in 10 mins or so, puts you in a far worse position on arrival at the alternate then you would have when approaching destination at the EAT.
You could well have enough in the tanks for another go if it all goes pear-shaped!
As for long haul over-flying alternates knowingthey will be short on arrival - there's a bit more to think about I reckon.
I would only divert in the circumstances you describe IF
the destination airfield could not give me an EAT due to unknown delays - blocked runway for example
or
the EAT was too long to wait (happened to me last week)
Going to an alternate say 20 mins away, when you have an EAT in 10 mins or so, puts you in a far worse position on arrival at the alternate then you would have when approaching destination at the EAT.
You could well have enough in the tanks for another go if it all goes pear-shaped!
As for long haul over-flying alternates knowingthey will be short on arrival - there's a bit more to think about I reckon.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopBunk.
The answer to your last question is...legality, plain and simple, considering FAA requirements. May be permissable under JAR.
That would be your problem.
FlapsOne
Just for the sake of discussion...
Why would you, assuming you were the Commander of a longhaul flight from (for example) KUL inbound for LHR, overfly suitable enroute alternates KNOWING you would have too little fuel upon arrival to divert, never mind hold?
In companies where I have worked, the Chief Pilot would take a very dim view of such proceedings, and with good reason, IMO.
The answer to your last question is...legality, plain and simple, considering FAA requirements. May be permissable under JAR.
That would be your problem.
FlapsOne
Just for the sake of discussion...
Why would you, assuming you were the Commander of a longhaul flight from (for example) KUL inbound for LHR, overfly suitable enroute alternates KNOWING you would have too little fuel upon arrival to divert, never mind hold?
In companies where I have worked, the Chief Pilot would take a very dim view of such proceedings, and with good reason, IMO.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
Read the last line of my post again!
However for discussion purposes, in the circumstances YOU describe, I would divert and pick up the extra gas.
In the circumstances I described, I wouldn't.
ergo:
There is no standard answer to this problem. There comes a time when the best decision must be made given the circumstances at the time. I get paid to make that decision and justify it, if necessary, afterwards.
Read the last line of my post again!
However for discussion purposes, in the circumstances YOU describe, I would divert and pick up the extra gas.
In the circumstances I described, I wouldn't.
ergo:
There is no standard answer to this problem. There comes a time when the best decision must be made given the circumstances at the time. I get paid to make that decision and justify it, if necessary, afterwards.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
Are you telling me that FAA regs require you say inbound to LAX with 4 runways in good wx conditions with an EAT known, that at all times you must preserve div fuel, and that you are not allowed under the regs to proceed to your destination, but must when it gets to the point that div fuel is about to be used that you MUST divert to a (possibly) single runway airfield (where there may be delays, and the wx may be worse) and MUST reject the possiblility of making an approach to your destination?
If so, not much joined up thinking there, is there?
Under the old UK CAA and now JAROPS the system works as previously described, it's not "my PROBLEM", it's my/our regulatory framework, which would appear to allow the captain greater flexibility on the day to decide on a course of action (whilst retaining the responsibility for any decisions, to be justified later if necessary).
Are you telling me that FAA regs require you say inbound to LAX with 4 runways in good wx conditions with an EAT known, that at all times you must preserve div fuel, and that you are not allowed under the regs to proceed to your destination, but must when it gets to the point that div fuel is about to be used that you MUST divert to a (possibly) single runway airfield (where there may be delays, and the wx may be worse) and MUST reject the possiblility of making an approach to your destination?
If so, not much joined up thinking there, is there?
Under the old UK CAA and now JAROPS the system works as previously described, it's not "my PROBLEM", it's my/our regulatory framework, which would appear to allow the captain greater flexibility on the day to decide on a course of action (whilst retaining the responsibility for any decisions, to be justified later if necessary).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopBunk
Not in the regulations, but in the operations specifications issued by the FAA to all aircarriers. Therefore, if specified therein, crews must divert unless the alternate is below landing minima, or forecast to be so at time of arrival. If the long range flight is operating under re-release, a different alternate (or two) may be specified in the re-release dispatch message.
To be caught short is not good, as Avianca has found out.
QF and MH have had rather close calls at LHR as I recall....ie: little fuel left in tanks at the parking bay.
Not in the regulations, but in the operations specifications issued by the FAA to all aircarriers. Therefore, if specified therein, crews must divert unless the alternate is below landing minima, or forecast to be so at time of arrival. If the long range flight is operating under re-release, a different alternate (or two) may be specified in the re-release dispatch message.
To be caught short is not good, as Avianca has found out.
QF and MH have had rather close calls at LHR as I recall....ie: little fuel left in tanks at the parking bay.
Last edited by 411A; 12th Jan 2003 at 01:56.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
Thanks.
No one here is suggesting doing anything that contravenes any regulations, be they implemented by the authority or by the company, so you must do what is required of you, sensible or otherwise.
It would appear that in the UK/Europe we operate with slightly greater flexibility at the hard end of the flight (it doesn't really matter if you're shorthaul or longhaul as the decision making process is the same) when it comes how the remaining fuel is used.
As to Avianca (into JFK), that they ran out of fuel was compounded by their poor communications with ATC as to the fuel remaining. As to QF and MH into LHR I don't know the fuel in tanks they had, but I presume that they require a minimum of 30 mins AT TOUCHDOWN, they may end up with less on stand (you can wait quite a while for a stand at LHR). So they could have landed with 30mins and arrived on gate with less. Furthermore the BA engineers at LHR will raise an Air Safety Report if you end up on stand with less than 30 mins fuel at max landing weight (which could of course differ from the reserve fuel requirements on the day). It is often the engineers ASR's that find their way into the press.
In all of this, lets not forget that while if would be (never been there myself) very uncomfortable landing with less than 30 mins fuel, it is still fuel that is usable for the day that the best plans don't quite work out.
Thanks.
No one here is suggesting doing anything that contravenes any regulations, be they implemented by the authority or by the company, so you must do what is required of you, sensible or otherwise.
It would appear that in the UK/Europe we operate with slightly greater flexibility at the hard end of the flight (it doesn't really matter if you're shorthaul or longhaul as the decision making process is the same) when it comes how the remaining fuel is used.
As to Avianca (into JFK), that they ran out of fuel was compounded by their poor communications with ATC as to the fuel remaining. As to QF and MH into LHR I don't know the fuel in tanks they had, but I presume that they require a minimum of 30 mins AT TOUCHDOWN, they may end up with less on stand (you can wait quite a while for a stand at LHR). So they could have landed with 30mins and arrived on gate with less. Furthermore the BA engineers at LHR will raise an Air Safety Report if you end up on stand with less than 30 mins fuel at max landing weight (which could of course differ from the reserve fuel requirements on the day). It is often the engineers ASR's that find their way into the press.
In all of this, lets not forget that while if would be (never been there myself) very uncomfortable landing with less than 30 mins fuel, it is still fuel that is usable for the day that the best plans don't quite work out.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TopBunk,
Unless of course...if the tank ports are ah...uncovered in the process, due to (for example) body angle.
Watched this personally many years ago with a B707 in Singapore (Bangladesh Biman), the results were not pretty.
Altho this particular incident was on departure (would you believe) ... good grief
Unless of course...if the tank ports are ah...uncovered in the process, due to (for example) body angle.
Watched this personally many years ago with a B707 in Singapore (Bangladesh Biman), the results were not pretty.
Altho this particular incident was on departure (would you believe) ...
good grief
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussion on fuel is usually about situation of poor forecast wx.
The more dangerous situation, IMO, is the scenario of CAVOK, peak period and a sudden airfield/ATC shutdown - forcing perhaps 30 or 40 a/c (all of whom planned on minimum delays) to suddenly have to look for a nest somewhere close.
Present "political" situation certainly doesn't make this scenario any less likely.
The more dangerous situation, IMO, is the scenario of CAVOK, peak period and a sudden airfield/ATC shutdown - forcing perhaps 30 or 40 a/c (all of whom planned on minimum delays) to suddenly have to look for a nest somewhere close.
Present "political" situation certainly doesn't make this scenario any less likely.
