NPA OPS 58 Terminology (1.192) and Fuel (1.255 & 1.375) Proposals arising from Fuel Symposium

1. NPA OPS 58 Terminology (1.192) andFuel (1.255 & 1.375) Proposals arising fromFuel Symposium Capt. Claude Godel OST 05-4

2. JAR OPS 1.192 TERMINOLOGY • The creation of a Terminology Chapter in Subpart D was an old OPSG project. • Two recent events decided us to make it become a reality: • in order to transmit a clear situation to EU OPS and EASA IRs we thought it necessary to clarify some important terminologies used in JAR OPS and to make sure that, once in section 1, they would continue to exist. • the Fuel Symposium introduced some new definitions.

3. JAR OPS 1.192 TERMINOLOGY • Most of the definitions were already in subpart D section 1 or section 2. • Among the new definitions: • We made a difference between a “standard” En Route Alternate and the specific 3% ERA • Contingency fuel has been defined as required to compensate for unforeseen factors which could have an influence on the fuel consumption to the destination aerodrome.

4. FUEL SYMPOSIUM CJAA Hoofddorp11/12 October 2005 Present: Jean-Claude Albert DGAC France OPSG Capt.Peter DehningIFALPA DLH OPSG Capt. Claude Godel AEA Air France OPSG Rob Holliday UK CAA OPSG Guy Morel AECMA AIRBUS OPSG F/O Tim Price AEA British Airways OPSG Capt. Ruud BakkerIACA Martinair Pierre ChevassonDGAC France Capt. Pekka HenttuAEA OST Finnair Eric Lesage AIRBUS Dick NederlofNL CAA Capt. Francis TruchetetDGAC France Air France Capt. Stephen Wright AEA British Airways

5. FUEL SYMPOSIUM General: The Fuel Symposium didn’t change any quantity of fuel required for the flight. The objective were: simplification, clarification and operational efficiency. Under EU OPS, Section 2 Material would be lost and much of the fuel planning was essentially mandatory thus there existed a need to transfer it to Section 1. Transfer of material from Part 2 to Part 1 would also solve the problem of the unscrupulous taking advantage of Part 2 not being mandatory. JAR OPS 1.375 In-flight Fuel management was amended to incorporate the Appendix into the JAR and to expand the text to avoid any possibility of any misunderstanding. As the Decision Point Procedure has been withdrawn from ICOA Annex 6, OPSG took the oportunity to replace it, in JAR OPS, by a new Reduced Contingency fuel procedure.

6. New Appendix(s) to JAR OPS 1.255 • General: • Three new Appendix(s) to JAR OPS 1.255 Fuel Policy have been created: • Appendix 1 is a reengineered version of ex AMC OPS 1.255 including following 4 chapters: • The Basic fuel calculation • The new Reduced Fuel Contingency procedure • The Pre-Determined Point procedure • The Isolated Aerodrome (which becomes just an annex of the PDP) • Appendix 2 defines the 3% En Route Alternate (no change) • Appendix 3 defines the statistical method for contingency fuel calculation (no change)

7. New Appendix 1 to JAR OPS 1.255 Content: • The Basic fuel calculation • No change (Concorde withdrawn, shall versus should) • The new Reduced Fuel Contingency procedure • See next slide • The Pre-Determined Point procedure • No change: type of contingency fuel free, 2 hours over Destination, final reserve over Alternate. • The Isolated Aerodrome procedure • Simplified: the last possible point of diversion to any available en route alternate aerodrome shall be used as the pre-determined point.

8. Dest. Alt. Dest.1 Alt. Dest. Dest. 1 Final standard flight plan En route Alt. Dest. 2 Dest.2 Alt. Dec. Point • 3% but no 3%ERA • no Alternate • only 1 runway Dec. Point Initial standard flight plan Dep. Dest. Dep. Old Dec. Point Procedure versus new RCF Decision Point Proc. RCF.

9. Dest. 1 Dest. Alt. Dest. 1 Less than two hours Good weather + 2 runways No Dest 1 alternate Dest. 2 Dest. 2 Refuel Alt. Refuel Alt. Dec. Point Dec. Point reduced contingency fuel Dep. Dep. Optimizing the Reduced Contingency Fuel procedure In flight Re-planning

10. JAR-OPS 1.295 Selection of aerodromes In-Flight re-planning In-Flight re-planning is already in JAR-OPS 1.255 Fuel policy: d) An operator shall ensure that in-flight re-planning procedures for calculating usable fuel required when a flight has to proceed along a route or to a destination aerodrome other than originally planned includes: etc… In JAR OPS 1.295 Selection of aerodrome, OPSG proposes to allow in-flight re-planning without alternate when the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed 2 hours, and … Reason: modern communication tools make as accurate weather forecasts available in the cockpit as on ground (6 hours before!).

11. Re-engineering of in-flight fuel management General: Appendix is incorporated into the JAR OPS 1.375 In-flight fuel management. The whole text is expanded to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding. The group agreed that the intention of the rule was that when a flight plan has been filed with a destination and an alternate, the commander must arrange is flight in order to keep these two possibilities to land safely as long as possible. It is only if, for unforeseen reasons, he can no longer do so that he must take the best course of action so as to land with not less then the final reserve fuel. The new text was therefore drafted to make the intention of the rule clear so that the commander must keep two possibilities to land safely as long as possible. A special chapter was added to the rule in order to cover in-flight management of specific procedures like the RCF and the PDP.

12. Thanks! OPSG members wish to thank the fuel experts who participated in the fuel symposium. We consider the meeting as fruitful and already imagine to use the same process for other OPSG subjects.