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 2StgTurbine (Post 3891062)

I would hope any new Delta captain isn't also a new pilot. You should be able to think critically before you make it to the interview here. Using NYC as an example is not representative. 99% of our flights are not in airspace as congested as NYC. Maybe you didn't actually read my comment, but I said, START with the FAR 45 minutes of reserve, and then add for the situation. If you are going to NYC, then it will take 30 minutes of fuel to get to another NYC airport. And if that doesn't work, be ready to go to ABE.

I hope that new captains here decide to actually think about fuel planning rather than blindly go off a number they heard in training with zero context placed around it. Otherwise, you might end up doing a needless divert because, after years of treating 6.0, 5.0, or whatever conservative number some random instructor told you, you started thinking that THAT number was actually minimum fuel. There was an ASAP where the crew declared emergency fuel but somehow landed with more than 45 minutes of fuel.

Let me ask you this HK, would you takeoff if the WDR said your takeoff limit weight was your current weight?

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo (Post 3892621)

They are "new pilots". We've got captains in our jets < 4 years of flying high performance jet aircraft. It's a reality.

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 Verdell (Post 3891081)

I'll stick with whichever is fuel state is higher. My comfort level, or what the book says. The book is usually higher, so that tends to make things real easy. Why make it harder?

Originally Posted by Guppydriver95 (Post 3891101)

I had an LOE check airman ask me what I’m comfortable landing with a garden variety domestic VFR day. I told him 30 minutes and one second. He was surprised. I told him if I could GUARANTEE it, I’d do it every time. But that’s not really the question. The question is how much am I comfortable PLANNING with. And that varies by segment. A 6 hour transcon and I’m probably going to be much more conservative than a quick hop from DEN-ABQ. Why? Because errors are exaggerated over time. Moderate turbulence over a 6 hour flight at our planned altitude will cause a low fuel state if we have to descend 4000 feet to get smooth air. On the other hand, it won’t make much difference on a quick :45 minute flight. I’ve chuckled many times through the years when I’ve given the pax a smooth ride at FL250 while some are stuck in the mid 30’s because they were tight on gas. To each his own, but planning the bare minimum typically removes options that allow us to better serve our customers, including flying fast if needed to get back on schedule, in addition to altitude flexibility.

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.

Originally Posted by Cruz5350 (Post 3891380)

This is exactly what I explain when asked or converse with the person next to me when the topic comes up.

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo (Post 3892626)

You guys are on track.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3892633)

Most of those quotes support my position, and one was factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3892633)

Most of those quotes support my position, and one was factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3892633)

Most of those quotes support my position, and one was factually incorrect.