BM FUEL PROBLEMS??
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think S&L made the point quite accurately regarding bmi fuel policy. We are required to arrive with alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel, which is 30 minutes holding at 1500'. With regard to Extra Fuel, our fuel policy states, and I quote:
"Extra Fuel, at the discretion of the commander to allow for forseeable circumstances, including:-
1) extra taxy fuel
2) extra fuel to allow for expected low level or off-optimum-level flight or extended ATC departure or arrival routeing.
3) extra fuel to allow for expected ATC delay.
4) extra fuel to allow for use of anti/de-icing systems."
The policy further states that delays of less than 20 minutes will not be promulgated.
My personal interpretation of that is to always take 20 minutes holding fuel as extra fuel unless a greater delay has been promulgated.
Having had a command with bmi for over 20 years, I have never had a fuel decision questioned by management.
It's up to the Captain on the day to make appropriate and sensible decisions regarding fuel.
Incidently it is also a company requirement to declare an emergency if at anytime a flight is expected to land with less than final reserve fuel. To my knowledge no bmi flight has ever declared an emergency for that reason!
Packsonflite
"Extra Fuel, at the discretion of the commander to allow for forseeable circumstances, including:-
1) extra taxy fuel
2) extra fuel to allow for expected low level or off-optimum-level flight or extended ATC departure or arrival routeing.
3) extra fuel to allow for expected ATC delay.
4) extra fuel to allow for use of anti/de-icing systems."
The policy further states that delays of less than 20 minutes will not be promulgated.
My personal interpretation of that is to always take 20 minutes holding fuel as extra fuel unless a greater delay has been promulgated.
Having had a command with bmi for over 20 years, I have never had a fuel decision questioned by management.
It's up to the Captain on the day to make appropriate and sensible decisions regarding fuel.
Incidently it is also a company requirement to declare an emergency if at anytime a flight is expected to land with less than final reserve fuel. To my knowledge no bmi flight has ever declared an emergency for that reason!
Packsonflite
Guest
Posts: n/a
N.Mouse I know where you are coming from but elaborate fully:
We were in the BIG hold appraching our EAT. The Speedbird 757 was on final vectors for RW27L. The runway became blocked by a B747 which had an engine fire on short finals. At that late stage the crew put out a call 'We have 5 minutes to run to a fuel emergency' They did not specify diverting as an option - presumably because they judged their fuel to be insuficient to reach Luton, Gatwick, Stansted ot Southampton at that late stage being (apparently) 5 minutes to final reserve fuel. Heathrow offered them an SRA to RW27R. The crew then replied that the cloudbase was below their minima. 'Delay not determined' was then broadcast as there was no suitable landing aid available. RW09L was mentioned but rejected by the 757 crew. The ILS for RW27R became available a few minutes later and the panic was over.
As I judge the BA 757 crew were operating fully in accordance with JAR having thrown away their alternate based on a known delay. Fate conspired against them and they were faced with using (some) of their final reserve fuel whilst the airfield sorted itself out. Fine. BUT . . . If we all operated to such tolerances there would be more instances like this for sure.
Of course, Heathrow has two runways and the chance of a double blockage is very small. However it also has more traffic than the single runway alternates so that has to be thought of too.
In extremis the BA 757 crew might have used their Final reserve fuel for a straight in to the nearest suitable airfield under a Mayday.
Reagards,
Caractacus.
P.S. I have to keep in with my Boss else he'll take away my nice Villa off the Via Appia.
We were in the BIG hold appraching our EAT. The Speedbird 757 was on final vectors for RW27L. The runway became blocked by a B747 which had an engine fire on short finals. At that late stage the crew put out a call 'We have 5 minutes to run to a fuel emergency' They did not specify diverting as an option - presumably because they judged their fuel to be insuficient to reach Luton, Gatwick, Stansted ot Southampton at that late stage being (apparently) 5 minutes to final reserve fuel. Heathrow offered them an SRA to RW27R. The crew then replied that the cloudbase was below their minima. 'Delay not determined' was then broadcast as there was no suitable landing aid available. RW09L was mentioned but rejected by the 757 crew. The ILS for RW27R became available a few minutes later and the panic was over.
As I judge the BA 757 crew were operating fully in accordance with JAR having thrown away their alternate based on a known delay. Fate conspired against them and they were faced with using (some) of their final reserve fuel whilst the airfield sorted itself out. Fine. BUT . . . If we all operated to such tolerances there would be more instances like this for sure.
Of course, Heathrow has two runways and the chance of a double blockage is very small. However it also has more traffic than the single runway alternates so that has to be thought of too.
In extremis the BA 757 crew might have used their Final reserve fuel for a straight in to the nearest suitable airfield under a Mayday.
Reagards,
Caractacus.
P.S. I have to keep in with my Boss else he'll take away my nice Villa off the Via Appia.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This comes back exactly to the point that I made earlier.
It is entirely safe to sit in the hold with the various airfields mentioned available and possibly closer than Lhr, so should something catastrophic happen there resulting in complete closure there is an escape route.
When the danger arises is when an aircraft has committed to Lhr and left the hold when the total closure occurs. Then there is no alternative remaining.
I accept that this is a most unlikely scenario, but it does occasionally happen, and if aircraft are arriving in the hold with only ,say, 20minutes fuel before committing on a regular basis then when it does happen, and if holding preceding it has exceeded 20minutes then someone eventually will be caught out.
I accept that in long haul there is a relatively high cost in carrying additional fuel, but in short haul the costs are relatively minor. In fact a short haul aircraft carrying extra fuel is able to exchange EATs with a company long haul aircraft and thereby prevent a costly diversion, good value for your extra $20.
It is entirely safe to sit in the hold with the various airfields mentioned available and possibly closer than Lhr, so should something catastrophic happen there resulting in complete closure there is an escape route.
When the danger arises is when an aircraft has committed to Lhr and left the hold when the total closure occurs. Then there is no alternative remaining.
I accept that this is a most unlikely scenario, but it does occasionally happen, and if aircraft are arriving in the hold with only ,say, 20minutes fuel before committing on a regular basis then when it does happen, and if holding preceding it has exceeded 20minutes then someone eventually will be caught out.
I accept that in long haul there is a relatively high cost in carrying additional fuel, but in short haul the costs are relatively minor. In fact a short haul aircraft carrying extra fuel is able to exchange EATs with a company long haul aircraft and thereby prevent a costly diversion, good value for your extra $20.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Snooky,
If LHR suffers a total closure for any reason there could be upwards of 20 aircraft in the stacks all looking to get somewhere else fairly quickly.
Add them to the aircraft inbound to the other TMA airfields which everyone is planning to divert to from LHR, and that escape route starts to look rather congested.
WF.
If LHR suffers a total closure for any reason there could be upwards of 20 aircraft in the stacks all looking to get somewhere else fairly quickly.
Add them to the aircraft inbound to the other TMA airfields which everyone is planning to divert to from LHR, and that escape route starts to look rather congested.
WF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
WF
That's a good point.
Just been re-reading this thread, and I'd disagree with the policy of some airlines that add a statistical average amount of fuel when operating to Lhr. The holding is totally unpredictable and can vary enormously day to day even in similar weather and at the same time of day.
That's a good point.
Just been re-reading this thread, and I'd disagree with the policy of some airlines that add a statistical average amount of fuel when operating to Lhr. The holding is totally unpredictable and can vary enormously day to day even in similar weather and at the same time of day.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Warped Factor; You have picked up my point nicely.
A total closure at LHR with EAT'S being issued would cause a bottleneck in the South East whilst aircraft start diverting. You have to take into account the likely traffic situation when commiting to land with final reserve fuel anyway.
Statistical surveys of likely holding delays and the extra fuel required are advisory only. The ANO states that the Commander shall carry such contingency fuel as he sees fit. Any Airline that challenged that legal that leagal statement would be undermining the Authority of the Commander to make a safe decision.
A total closure at LHR with EAT'S being issued would cause a bottleneck in the South East whilst aircraft start diverting. You have to take into account the likely traffic situation when commiting to land with final reserve fuel anyway.
Statistical surveys of likely holding delays and the extra fuel required are advisory only. The ANO states that the Commander shall carry such contingency fuel as he sees fit. Any Airline that challenged that legal that leagal statement would be undermining the Authority of the Commander to make a safe decision.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here is the relevant extract from the ANO:
Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft
43 The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall reasonably satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(e) in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil and engine coolant have been complied with;
QED
[This message has been edited by Wig Wag (edited 10 May 2001).]
Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft
43 The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall reasonably satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(e) in the case of a flying machine or airship, that sufficient fuel, oil and engine coolant (if required) are carried for the intended flight, and that a safe margin has been allowed for contingencies, and, in the case of a flight for the purpose of public transport, that the instructions in the operations manual relating to fuel, oil and engine coolant have been complied with;
QED
[This message has been edited by Wig Wag (edited 10 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.ais.org.uk/filestor/egll.txt
Makes interesting reading if you read the one about peak congestion hours at Heathrow.
Notam A504/01
http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/
Makes intereseting reading if you read the SOC Fuel Review recomendations about likely holding fuel being TRIP FUEL not Reserve Fuel.
Also some airlines do not add on the required holding fuel into London but plan to use part of the Reserve Fuel ie. Contingency Fuel to cover this. They say it is not 'certain' that holding will happen into London so extra fuel should not be added.(eg. BRITISH AIRWAYS).
If 'signifacant' inbound delays occure then a message is quickly sent to all stations to load extra fuel!!!!!!!!!
I have seen many examples of events conspiring against pilots into London.
After reading this thread and flying many thousands of hours into and out of Heathrow,
IMHO 20 mins holding fuel should always be included as extra TRIP FUEL.
Rememnber that your licence is from the CAA.
Take enough fuel....!
Remember that your job is from the airline.
So don't take too much.....!!
Makes interesting reading if you read the one about peak congestion hours at Heathrow.
Notam A504/01
http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/
Makes intereseting reading if you read the SOC Fuel Review recomendations about likely holding fuel being TRIP FUEL not Reserve Fuel.
Also some airlines do not add on the required holding fuel into London but plan to use part of the Reserve Fuel ie. Contingency Fuel to cover this. They say it is not 'certain' that holding will happen into London so extra fuel should not be added.(eg. BRITISH AIRWAYS).
If 'signifacant' inbound delays occure then a message is quickly sent to all stations to load extra fuel!!!!!!!!!
I have seen many examples of events conspiring against pilots into London.
After reading this thread and flying many thousands of hours into and out of Heathrow,
IMHO 20 mins holding fuel should always be included as extra TRIP FUEL.
Rememnber that your licence is from the CAA.
Take enough fuel....!
Remember that your job is from the airline.
So don't take too much.....!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
i agree with zombie..
if you don,t have 15/20 mins fuel thinking time in the egll/egkk area ,you should not be there...
i love the idea of "upwards of 20 a/c looking for somewhere to go if egll goes all stop"
since when did egll stop taking usual traffic???
if you don,t have 15/20 mins fuel thinking time in the egll/egkk area ,you should not be there...
i love the idea of "upwards of 20 a/c looking for somewhere to go if egll goes all stop"
since when did egll stop taking usual traffic???
Guest
Posts: n/a
HD, I guess you would have to be the one to bring this subject up. Especially as it appears that there is a fine line being drawn somewhere between what is required and safety, and what you describe seems awful close!
I would always have taken an extra 30 minutes worth as my bit "for my kids" because one day what might happen is that which we don't like to think about. Getting so short that a field might be the next stop.
The Captain has the final decision and if he cuts it fine, or worse still gets it wrong, will the company get blamed? I don't think so.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Caractacus
Thanks for the explanation. I agree not a pleasant situation.
One further thought.
You take 20 mins holding fuel into EGLL. Holding is 40 mins(not unheard of). You prudently divert after 35 mins (your extra holding fuel and contingency gone). You are then on the approach into EGKK and the runway becomes blocked.
Where do we draw the line?
Thanks for the explanation. I agree not a pleasant situation.
One further thought.
You take 20 mins holding fuel into EGLL. Holding is 40 mins(not unheard of). You prudently divert after 35 mins (your extra holding fuel and contingency gone). You are then on the approach into EGKK and the runway becomes blocked.
Where do we draw the line?
Guest
Posts: n/a
N.Mouse:-
I thought you might say that!
The answer is I don't know. If your destination goes to full closure and your alternate has a blocked runway then you can only do your best.
All these situations are made more problematic, of course, if everyone is on a tight fuel policy.
Where do we draw the line?
I personally feel that the savings made through company fuel policies are not part of the big picture. Many more important factors affect profitability.
Without revealing my employers name I am happy to say that I enjoy a culture that allows me simply to work the fuel I need without pressure. We still make a profit regardless. I would hate that to change.
[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 11 May 2001).]
I thought you might say that!
The answer is I don't know. If your destination goes to full closure and your alternate has a blocked runway then you can only do your best.
All these situations are made more problematic, of course, if everyone is on a tight fuel policy.
Where do we draw the line?
I personally feel that the savings made through company fuel policies are not part of the big picture. Many more important factors affect profitability.
Without revealing my employers name I am happy to say that I enjoy a culture that allows me simply to work the fuel I need without pressure. We still make a profit regardless. I would hate that to change.
[This message has been edited by Caractacus (edited 11 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the expected holding delay fuel is NOT loaded as Trip Fuel then you are ingoring the advice from the CAA and starting with some of your Reserve Fuel pre-assigned.
Why start with one hand behind your back?
This should never happen but does on most BA flights into London!
edited for spelling
[This message has been edited by The Zombie (edited 11 May 2001).]
Why start with one hand behind your back?
This should never happen but does on most BA flights into London!
edited for spelling
[This message has been edited by The Zombie (edited 11 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
sweeper,
I'm not sure what you're asking about LHR, want to try again?
Interesting one at EGKK this morning.....
Major UK airline inbound, domestic sector, no delay/holding and vectored straight downwind into the sequence advised it would declare an emergency if it had to make a missed approach.
On asking why, was advised it was "a bit tight on fuel".
Cutting it a rather fine considering it had only come down from lowland Scotland? Wonder what he/she would have said if told 15 minutes delay?
WF.
[This message has been edited by Warped Factor (edited 11 May 2001).]
I'm not sure what you're asking about LHR, want to try again?
Interesting one at EGKK this morning.....
Major UK airline inbound, domestic sector, no delay/holding and vectored straight downwind into the sequence advised it would declare an emergency if it had to make a missed approach.
On asking why, was advised it was "a bit tight on fuel".
Cutting it a rather fine considering it had only come down from lowland Scotland? Wonder what he/she would have said if told 15 minutes delay?
WF.
[This message has been edited by Warped Factor (edited 11 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
W F Probably say "It was not the pilots fault but a "statistical anomaly" and our company will be adjusting their figures at the next manual reprint in 2002, meanwhile we are a bit poorly placed, so is there an airborne gas station facility available, and what does one normaly do in situations like this?"
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
sweeper,
Right......well there could be twenty or so at the inner stacks to sort out asap.
Of course there'll be plenty more behind, either in/passing the outer stacks or further out, but they are not the immediate problem, those at the inner stacks are.
Then there's the traffic already in the queue to the airfields the initial 20 odd are wanting to go to.
Twenty was a ball park figure for the traffic holding at BOV, LAM, OCK and BIG. Add in the rest and it's not pretty.....
WF.
Right......well there could be twenty or so at the inner stacks to sort out asap.
Of course there'll be plenty more behind, either in/passing the outer stacks or further out, but they are not the immediate problem, those at the inner stacks are.
Then there's the traffic already in the queue to the airfields the initial 20 odd are wanting to go to.
Twenty was a ball park figure for the traffic holding at BOV, LAM, OCK and BIG. Add in the rest and it's not pretty.....
WF.
Guest
Posts: n/a
M.Mouse
You ask where do we draw the line.
I would suggest that we draw it at carrying an amount of fuel into somewhere busy and unpredictable like Lhr that is sufficient to make committing to a landing there unlikely.
In the scenario which you describe above, if you have taken the sensible route and diverted from the hold, the runway becoming blocked at Lgw would not be too big a problem.
The reason for this is that from the hold (any around Lhr) the fuel burned on the approach will be similar for either Lhr or Lgw. At the point of go around due closed runway therefore, you will still have enough fuel to safely divert to one of the many other airfields in the vicinity, maybe even the one that you were originally destined for. Because this would only take place very infrequently, it is most unlikely that that airfield too would become closed.
The danger is only there from people regularly comitting to an airfield, meaning that the very unlikely scenario of closure will eventually catch them out.
You ask where do we draw the line.
I would suggest that we draw it at carrying an amount of fuel into somewhere busy and unpredictable like Lhr that is sufficient to make committing to a landing there unlikely.
In the scenario which you describe above, if you have taken the sensible route and diverted from the hold, the runway becoming blocked at Lgw would not be too big a problem.
The reason for this is that from the hold (any around Lhr) the fuel burned on the approach will be similar for either Lhr or Lgw. At the point of go around due closed runway therefore, you will still have enough fuel to safely divert to one of the many other airfields in the vicinity, maybe even the one that you were originally destined for. Because this would only take place very infrequently, it is most unlikely that that airfield too would become closed.
The danger is only there from people regularly comitting to an airfield, meaning that the very unlikely scenario of closure will eventually catch them out.
Guest
Posts: n/a
snooky
Sorry to labour the point but what is the difference between the following:
Taking 10 mins extra to LHR, holding for 25 mins (so burning your 'extra' and contingency) and diverting to say LGW to find the runway blocked when established on finals.
Committing to LHR and finding the runway blocked when established on finals.
The point has been made that,finding the destination suddenly closed with many aeroplanes committed to landing at destination,chaos would ensue with all the aeroplanes low on fuel. This would of course imply that all the aeroplanes started holding at the same time with identical diversion fuel for the same alternate.
I really think this debate is going round in circles, no disrespect intended to the contributors to this unusually courteous discussion.
I take lots extra when I feel I need it, my management don't chastise me for it. This would seem to be the case with most of the contributors.
On a lighter note. Shortly after joining my present company I flew with a Captain that I had only just met. On the front page of our flight plans next to the extra fuel figure you put a circle around ATC or WX or write your own reason. He seemed a little serious and when he asked me to put a capital letter 'B' on the extra fuel line I did so without question. A little later in the flight when it was apparent that he was in fact very approachable I asked what 'B' meant. His reply was 'Because I want it'. He claimed, and I have no reason to doubt his word, that in several years of entering 'B' he had never been asked by management what it meant!
Sorry to labour the point but what is the difference between the following:
Taking 10 mins extra to LHR, holding for 25 mins (so burning your 'extra' and contingency) and diverting to say LGW to find the runway blocked when established on finals.
Committing to LHR and finding the runway blocked when established on finals.
The point has been made that,finding the destination suddenly closed with many aeroplanes committed to landing at destination,chaos would ensue with all the aeroplanes low on fuel. This would of course imply that all the aeroplanes started holding at the same time with identical diversion fuel for the same alternate.
I really think this debate is going round in circles, no disrespect intended to the contributors to this unusually courteous discussion.
I take lots extra when I feel I need it, my management don't chastise me for it. This would seem to be the case with most of the contributors.
On a lighter note. Shortly after joining my present company I flew with a Captain that I had only just met. On the front page of our flight plans next to the extra fuel figure you put a circle around ATC or WX or write your own reason. He seemed a little serious and when he asked me to put a capital letter 'B' on the extra fuel line I did so without question. A little later in the flight when it was apparent that he was in fact very approachable I asked what 'B' meant. His reply was 'Because I want it'. He claimed, and I have no reason to doubt his word, that in several years of entering 'B' he had never been asked by management what it meant!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Found this in my mail this morning:
------------------
Capt PPRuNe
aka Danny Fyne
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">By Vanessa Houlder
Published: May 13 2001 21:26GMT | Last Updated: May 13 2001 21:53GMT
The company culture of some British airlines could be prompting pilots to reduce the fuel taken on commercial flights, according to a report by the Civil Aviation Authority, the air safety regulator.
The review said it was conceivable that the application of excessively tight fuel policies could add to the perceived mental pressure on pilots, leading to poor decision-making and increased risk of accidents.
The survey of 14 operators found no evidence that company fuel planning processes contravened official requirements. It said it was harder to measure the impact of company culture on questions such as whether pilots should accept extra payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of contingency fuel.
It said that although none of the operators had specified unreasonable guidelines about the amount of fuel with which commanders might depart, this was difficult to reconcile with some reports that had been received from flight crews.
It urged companies to address "the manner in which flight crews interpret their company culture on fuel planning". The review said some operators were reported to use "league tables" that ranked commanders who took more fuel on flights than stipulated by computer flight plans.</font>
Published: May 13 2001 21:26GMT | Last Updated: May 13 2001 21:53GMT
The company culture of some British airlines could be prompting pilots to reduce the fuel taken on commercial flights, according to a report by the Civil Aviation Authority, the air safety regulator.
The review said it was conceivable that the application of excessively tight fuel policies could add to the perceived mental pressure on pilots, leading to poor decision-making and increased risk of accidents.
The survey of 14 operators found no evidence that company fuel planning processes contravened official requirements. It said it was harder to measure the impact of company culture on questions such as whether pilots should accept extra payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of contingency fuel.
It said that although none of the operators had specified unreasonable guidelines about the amount of fuel with which commanders might depart, this was difficult to reconcile with some reports that had been received from flight crews.
It urged companies to address "the manner in which flight crews interpret their company culture on fuel planning". The review said some operators were reported to use "league tables" that ranked commanders who took more fuel on flights than stipulated by computer flight plans.</font>
Capt PPRuNe
aka Danny Fyne
The Professional Pilots RUmour NEtwork