AUS high winds
03-13-2025 | 11:12 AM
#111
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 203
Likes: 6
Big picture, plan ahead by calculating how many go-arounds you can do with your extra fuel either using the FOM or Pulse numbers.
Then determine how you want to use that extra:
X go-around(s) and declare min fuel, or
X go-around(s) then divert, or
X go-around(s) then take the extra to the alternate because of the weather, or
27 go-arounds then question life (I once had 27.0 extra).
Just plan way ahead so as not to be the crew who does multiple go-arounds without the fuel to do so.
Also, not sure how having a personal hard limit helps. If you say on your plane 6.0 is your hard number, okay, well on todays flight the min fuel at destination is 11.0 and youre landing with 13… what’s your plan if they send you around?
Then determine how you want to use that extra:
X go-around(s) and declare min fuel, or
X go-around(s) then divert, or
X go-around(s) then take the extra to the alternate because of the weather, or
27 go-arounds then question life (I once had 27.0 extra).
Just plan way ahead so as not to be the crew who does multiple go-arounds without the fuel to do so.
Also, not sure how having a personal hard limit helps. If you say on your plane 6.0 is your hard number, okay, well on todays flight the min fuel at destination is 11.0 and youre landing with 13… what’s your plan if they send you around?
03-13-2025 | 02:03 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 3,421
Likes: 872
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.
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.
03-13-2025 | 02:04 PM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 3,421
Likes: 872
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?
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?
03-13-2025 | 02:13 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
Someone even said they always thought of 6.0 as a planning number but then said they would reevaluate in the air. Most people I fly with say the same thing. The problem is when it comes time to reevalute, you don't have that much time. If you are willing to land with less than 6.0 when you are holding outside the airport, then that was never a hard value anyway.
Rather than say, you should always land with at least 6.0, why not say, "anytime it looks like we are going to to land under 6.0, let's closely review the flight plan and our options if we can't get into the destination."
03-13-2025 | 02:14 PM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 3,421
Likes: 872
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.
You guys are on track.
03-13-2025 | 02:41 PM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 485
Cooperate to graduate I guess.
03-13-2025 | 04:09 PM
#119
Respek
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,917
Likes: 63
03-13-2025 | 04:37 PM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 3,421
Likes: 872
I reread your original fuel post and I still maintain that it's not a good position to take and further not one I would want out there on an easily searchable pilot forum. To be clear we're discussing VFR no ALT required number here.
You do you. I hope your luck doesn't run out.
I've come close a few times in my career and I won't put myself, my crew or my pax in that situation again. I've got my min target number and no it pretty much does not change. Fortunately for me and int'l flying I rarely am faced with it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
