![]() |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3891263)
I have no problem with instructors saying min fuel is x but we teach to land with y. According to flight pulse, most go arounds to landing are between 1500-2000 lbs. So, with 6000 planned, your second approach is landing just above min fuel. If you are planned to land at 4.5 or 5, you're well into an emergency situation if ATC screws up spacing or someone takes to long on the runway or an unstable approach or or or.
This is exactly what I explain when asked or converse with the person next to me when the topic comes up. |
Good discussion.
Also, the difference between Z Weight and Max Landing Weight in the 737 is: 737-700 7500lbs 737-800 8000lbs 737-900ER 10000lbs 8Max 7400lbs 9Max 9400lbs That means unless you were Takeoff weight limited, you can land with that much fuel in your tanks without bumping anything. |
Originally Posted by Singlecoil
(Post 3891460)
Good discussion.
Also, the difference between Z Weight and Max Landing Weight in the 737 is: 737-700 7500lbs 737-800 8000lbs 737-900ER 10000lbs 8Max 7400lbs 9Max 9400lbs That means unless you were Takeoff weight limited, you can land with that much fuel in your tanks without bumping anything. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3891098)
If the minimum wasn't good enough it wouldn't be the minimum. What I love is a 45 minutes reserve into LAS when VFR...
|
Recent example.
You arrive into SAN with 7.0 and Approach holds you at the FAF to allow 2 opposite-direction departures out. That will take 8 minutes/700 lbs. Your alternate is ONT and the burn from SAN to ONT is 1.4. According to that instructor, you should divert to ONT now. That would have me land into ONT with 5.6. Or I could hold, and start the approach with 6.3. Maybe I have to go around. That means I could get to ONT with 4.6. Sorry, but holding for 8 minutes is much easier than dealing with a divert during a simple day trip. Even if another unforeseen event happened that forced a diver to ONT, I still could have landed with 52 minutes of fuel. And if I didn't like how ATC was getting me to ONT, then declare min fuel. There are a lot of backup options if plan A doesn't work. And before anyone doubts the alternate fuel burns, Delta started using the preferred ATC routings and realistic altitudes to alternates rather than straight-line distances. |
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
(Post 3892235)
Recent example.
You arrive into SAN with 7.0 and Approach holds you at the FAF to allow 2 opposite-direction departures out. That will take 8 minutes/700 lbs. Your alternate is ONT and the burn from SAN to ONT is 1.4. According to that instructor, you should divert to ONT now. That would have me land into ONT with 5.6. Or I could hold, and start the approach with 6.3. Maybe I have to go around. That means I could get to ONT with 4.6. Sorry, but holding for 8 minutes is much easier than dealing with a divert during a simple day trip. Even if another unforeseen event happened that forced a diver to ONT, I still could have landed with 52 minutes of fuel. And if I didn't like how ATC was getting me to ONT, then declare min fuel. There are a lot of backup options if plan A doesn't work. And before anyone doubts the alternate fuel burns, Delta started using the preferred ATC routings and realistic altitudes to alternates rather than straight-line distances. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3892303)
Was the instructor saying any time you are estimated to land under 6 you should immediately divert? I know I wasn't there but I find that highly improbable. How it's always been explained to me is that 6.0 is purely for planning purposes at the gate.
|
Originally Posted by Cruz5350
(Post 3892449)
Thats exactly how it was explained, from an at the gate planning perspective I have my number whatever it may be. Once were airborne we evaluate and adjust.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3892303)
Was the instructor saying any time you are estimated to land under 6 you should immediately divert? I know I wasn't there but I find that highly improbable. How it's always been explained to me is that 6.0 is purely for planning purposes at the gate.
And the context for this specific lesson was stating an approach with 5.5 and having to go around due to a runway closure. I elected to take a visual approach to another runway instead of diverting. |
Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad
(Post 3892453)
Exactly. According to a flight plan once I had 45 minutes of holding fuel (was expected). But then ATC dropped me from mid-30s to low 20s for holding. That 45 became 25 in a hurry. Always evaluating.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:34 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands