Fuel Policy Flashcards
What section of OM-A describes the commit to destination fuel policy?
- 3 Flight Procedures»_space;
- 3.7 Policy and Procedures for In-flight fuel management»_space;
- 3.7.2 In-flight Fuel Management
If, as a result of an in-flight fuel check, the expected fuel remaining on arrival at the destination (FOD) is less than the required alternate fuel (ALT) plus final reserve fuel (FR)…. what must the Commander do?
The Command must decide whether to continue or to divert. To do this the Command must:
- take into account the traffic and the operational conditions (i.e. weather and ground facilities serviceability) prevailing at the destination aerodrome, (What about along the route to the destination??)
— along the diversion route to an alternate aerodrome, (what about actually ATC the alternate aerodrome??) and
— at the destination alternate aerodrome.. (what is the point of this… we have already determined that we don’t have the fuel to continue to destination and then to fly to the destination alternate!!??)
.. when deciding whether to proceed to the destination aerodrome or to divert, so as to land with not less than final reserve fuel.
In line with the OM-A 8.3.7.2 (In-flight Fuel Management) policy, when an en-route fuel check shows that there will be less than Alternate + Final RSV fuel remaining, is it possible to continue?
Under what conditions?
Yes
With conditions … depending on whether or not maximum delay is know or an EAT is received from ATC
Under what conditions may flight towards destination continue (commitment to destination) when an en-route fuel check shows that there will be less than Alternate + Final RSV:
- if maximum delay is known or EAT at destination is received from ATC?
- if maximum delay is not known or an EAT at destination not received from ATC?
If maximum delay (if any) is known or an EAT (Expected Approach Time) at destination received from ATC:
- The flight may continue to destination regardless of the number of runways as long as landing at destination is assured and it is possible to reach the destination with at least final reserve fuel remaining at touchdown.
If maximum delay is not known and an EAT at destination not received, the flight may continue towards destination if it is is possible to reach at least two aerodromes at which landing is assured with at least final reserve fuel remaining at touchdown.
Note: Two separate and independent runways at a single aerodrome within a flying time of 2 hours may be considered to be equivalent to two aerodromes, provided that account is taken if fuel burn due any likely ATC delay.
Note: A landing is ‘assured’, in in the judgement of the Commander, it could be completed in the event of any forecast deterioration in the weather and single plausible failures of ground or airborne facilities. Forecasts should be used to assess the probability of landing success when more than two hours from the relevant aerodrome. Within two hours, actual weather reports and trend information may be used.
Ref: OM-A/8.3.7.2 In-flight Fuel Management
For the In-Flight Fuel Management policy, when considering if it is permissible to continue towards destination when fuel at touchdown there will be less than Alternate + Final RSV (but not less than Final RSV), what does ‘landing assured’ mean?
‘Landing assured’ means that, in the judgement of the commander, the landing can be completed even if the following occurs:
- the weather deteriorates to the maximum that it is forecast to deteriorate to (eg in a TEMPO), and..
- any plausible single failures of ground or airborne facilities (eg the ground ILS or aircraft ILS system becomes unserviceable and you need to fly an RNAV).
Note: When more than 2 hours from the aerodrome we can use forecasts to assess the probability of landing (to judge whether landing is ‘assured’ or not). Within 2 hours, actual weather reports and trend information (ATIS and METAR) may be used.
Ref: OM-A / 8.3.7.2. In-Flight Fuel Management.
My personal way of writing this.
Landing is assured, if in the judgement of the commander, that even if:
- The weather deteriorates to the maximum severity as per the forecast, and/or
- A plausible single failure of a ground facility or aircraft equipment that would cause a landing capability downgrade..
.. and we would still be very confident of landing.
Example: BKN020 with 5km vis and a TEMPO for SHRA 3000m. If we were to lose CAT 1 ILS landing capability … so long as the worst weather forecast as per the TEMPO, was to occur and this vis and cloud base was still above the RNAV or VOR minima, then the Commander was to judge people that landing is assured.
When assessing whether a landing is ‘assured’ or not, in terms of checking the weather for possible forecast deterioration, what weather information can we use?
When more than 2 hours from the relevant aerodrome, forecasts should be used (TAF).
When within 2 hours, actual weather reports and trend information may be used (ATIS, METAR, TTF).
Ref: OM-A / 8.3.7.2 In-Flight Fuel Management.
When is a decision point procedure “reclearance” normally used?
This fuel planning strategy is normally used when there is a payload restriction or tank capacity limitation (eg due to a Fuel MEL) and the normal fuel load can’t be carried.
The flight is planned via a decision point along the route.
**. Info below needs to be edited as it is incorrect **
It gives the ability to to plan a flight with a lessor amount of fuel than the normal 5% contingency (ie flights planned with the Decision Point Procedure have only 3% contingency).
The flight must be planned with a suitable Enroute Alternate (ERA) to be nominated.
The location of the ERA must be within a certain radius centered on a position on the route, the distance of each is based on a proportion of teh total flight plan distance.
So how does this work: When you get to the decision point… what do you consider to decide whether to get reclearance to go to the ERA or continue to destination? Do you just need burn to destination + ALT + FR to continue, without having to evoke the commit to destination fuel policy?
I guess.. at the DP if you don’t have burn to destination + ALT + FR, then you still have options: Either to get reclearance to the ERA, or to commit to destination and land with < ALT +FR, but still >FR.
What must alternate fuel be sufficient for?
A. A missed approach from MDA/DH to missed approach altitude.
B. A climb from missed approach altitude to cruising level/altitude.
C. The cruise from TOC to TOD at CI=0.
D. TOD to start of the approach taking into account the expected approach procedure.
E. Approach and landing at the alternate.
F. If two destination alternates are required then alternate fuel should be sufficient to proceed to the alternate that requires the most fuel of the two.
G. If the alternate is less than 60 track miles from destination then it’s fuel calculation will be based on 60 track nm..
What fuel is required for the DPP (Decision Point Procedure)?
The fuel required for the DPP is the greater of A or B, as shown below:
A.
Taxi.
Trip fuel departure to destination via DP.
Contingency: Minimum 5% of the fuel from DP to destination.
Alternate fuel
FR 30 min
Additional if required.
Extra fuel at the Commander’s discretion.
B.
Taxi.
Trip fuel: departure to destination, via DP.
Contingency: at least 3% of the trip from departure to DP to ERA.
FR 30 mins
Additional fuel if required.
Extra fuel at the Commander’s discretion.
Ref: OM-A / 8.1.7.3.2
To minimise cold-soaked fuel in tanks after landing, what are the parameters that dispatchers should note and plan for?
If the destination OAT is likely to be 20 degC at ETA:
- the aircraft shall not be planned to land with more than 25t fuel in the A380 tanks (unless operationally required to otherwise, eg fuel is being carried for operational reasons such as destination alternate requirements or lack of fuel availability at destination, and also, if the flight is planned with a short flight time, ie no more than 2 hours or low altitude cruise, whereby there is reduced likelihood of the fuel becoming cold soaked.)
Ref: OM-A / 8.1.7.3.3.1 (03FEB20)
What does a declaration to ATC of “minimum fuel” mean?
“Minimum fuel” shall (MUST!) be declared to ATC when we are committing to land and we calculate that any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than the panned FR 30 mins.
Ref: OM-A / 8.3.7.4 Low Fuel State
What must a pilot do when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing with less than the final reserve plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate (or have the fuel required for an isolated aerodrome)?
The PIC must request delay information.
Ref: OM-A / 8.3.7.4 Low Fuel State
What must the PIC do when it is calculated that any change to the current clearance MAY result in landing with less than the planned FR 30 mins?
The PIC must declared “minimum fuel” to ATC.
Ref: OM-A / 8.3.7.4.1 MINIMUM Fuel.
What must the PIC do when calculated usable fuel predicted at landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned FR 30 mins?
The PIC must declare a fuel emergency by broadcasting: “MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, FUEL.”
What is a better way to explain the OM-A 8.3.7.2 policy for In-flight Fuel Management?
As per the Fuel Management eLearning PDF that was put out in 2019:
Break it up into two situations: When far away from destination and when close to destination.
When far away from destination, it is a case of considerations that enable you to CONTINUE towards destination.
When close to destination, it is a case of considerations that enabl you to COMMIT to destination.
When far away from destination: The flight can CONTINUE towards destination as long as landing is assured at two airports along the route. To be assured of landing at two airports along the route the following 3 conditions apply:
- We have weather information (TAF or METAR) and even if the weather deteriorates to the maximum severity as per the forecast, we will still expect to be able to land.
- We have to take into account a possible plausible single failure of ground or airborne equipment that affects landing capability, eg if ILS equipment was to become unserviceable then we would have to have serviceable ground and aircraft equipment to fly an RNAV/VOR (and the weather forecast would also have to be above the RNAV/VOR minima).
- We would be able land at either airport with at least 30 mins spare fuel.
Furthermore, there is an exception to the requirement to have two airports available along the route. In fact only one airport available to divert to is sufficient if we are always within 2 hours flying time of it and the airport has 2 separate and independent (ie not crossing) runways and we factor in any extra fuel burn that is likely, due to ATC delays (in other words we need delay or traffic information from ATC and we need extra enough fuel for the delay, still to land with at least 30 minutes spare).
When close to destination, it is possible to continue to hold (rather than immediately diverting to the alternate) and COMMIT to destination and land with at least 30 mins spare, as long as you have the following:
- The expect delay time or EAT from ATC
- Check that the weather forecast indicates that you will be able to land even it if deteriorates to maximum severity
- Take into account the possibility of a plausible single failure of ground or airborne landing facility equipment (ie if we could no longer fly an ILS then we would need to be able to fly an RNAV and the worst-case weather forecast would be above landing minima).
Note regarding weather: When more that two hours from landing we would use a TAF. When less than 2 hours from landing we can use a METAR or ATIS or TTF.
