New EASA Fuel/energy policy 2022

[Dispatcher]

I was wondering if somebody is already getting grips with the new EASA fuel/energy rules that will be into force on October 30th 2022;
The target of the new policy is  to reduce the carried reserve fuel (alias unnecessary weight) thus having a better environmental impact; they advertise huge reducing of CO2 etc. This will be possible with a better risk assestment, a better planing data (weather ) etc...
The document doesn't look easily readible! I'll study the question whenever I'll have time but maybe some operator/pilot here already had to deal with it?

https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-publishes-new-fuelenergy-rules-positive-environmental

[kwieser76]

Yeap the change looks easy but they are not so easy :-)

2 major changes are

- new planning minima calculation for
(a) a destination alternate aerodrome,

(b) a fuel ERA aerodrome, or

(c) an isolated destination aerodrome,

here you have 3 options that Schema Operator wants to use.

and then: 'Fuel ERA aerodrome critical scenario': this aerodrome is used when additional fuel is required at the critical point along the route to comply with point (c)(6) of CAT.OP.MPA.181 'Fuel/energy scheme — fuel/energy planning and in-flight replanning policy — aeroplanes';
- and for this Fuel critical airport you have to do an check according following definition: weather-permissible aerodrome

EASA Webex on 07JUL
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/events/webinar-fuel-management-rules

The second big change is for All-Weather operation
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/agency-decisions/ed-decision-2022007r

[Hardy Heinlin]

I moved that last off-topic comment to the Pit: https://aerowinx.com/board/index.php?topic=6725.0

[Dispatcher]

Thanks kwieser76,

I'm gonna go in deep reading all the documents...

[DougSnow]

I've been considering asking at work to request an exemption to be able to use the old 5%, 3% with an enroute alternate, and if going alternate NONE at destination adding 15 mins of hold fuel; the old EU-Ops Fuel standard. In many cases it is a significant savings relative to straight flag (anything is better than straight flag); but I can envision the FAA telling me to go pound sand... there is B343, but so far no one (besides me) sees a value to it; and when jet fuel is 6-7 bucks a gallon, it's too late...

[United744]

Sorry for the O/T post.

I thought airlines were already flying with the minimum fuel they can?

There are several flights that were already emergency situations that would now be smoking holes had they carried any less fuel than they already were, and we know there are several instances of mis-fuelling whereby the aircraft didn't have the fuel onboard that was thought.

I can see trying to fly with even less fuel causing more problems/crashes.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

My understanding is that there are attempts to reduce legally required fuel where that is safely possible. In general this tends to mean more complicated regulation, in the same way that more complex regulation for safe takeoff performance calculations allowed for more efficient/economical operations as long as you used a software program instead of a simple table. Some operators will decide to just calculate according to simpler rules and take the cost hit instead. Others will go to the last bloody limit gallon they can shave off their load.

For example I can imagine that regulations allow to carry less fuel if you have plenty of enroute stop opportunities to top up in case of less than forecasted tail winds. You as operator take the risk of a significant delay in return for fuel savings, without really reducing the safety margin.

For other ops, like flying to far-out oceanic islands, I think less changes.

Maybe somebody in the know can summarize the perceived impact on most or some operations?

Hoppie

[IefCooreman]

The new regulation sounds like more freedom for (big) carriers that work with statistical data which I'm a big fan of (if done correctly).

The one thing to always keep in mind is that this is flight planning. It is not "inflight". For years and years now the planning phase seems to have been focused on alternates in an attempt to reduce fuel. There is a lot you can go into here, up to the point I have asked "the responsible people" what I have to do in case diversions because the alternates started getting ridiculous. Their answer was as usual: "we take the responsibility, you divert".

The point at which you decide to divert is not that easy, it's a case by case situation. But the fuel you need to divert will not change with any kind of regulation. After A to B, the aircraft needs to go to C. That decision point has only been brought forward as I can be flexible to go from A to B and work a little with the unexpected, there is no point in working with the "unexpected" if you have to divert. People, even pilots tend to forget, there are a lot less safety factors in a diversion (no contingency fuel, no obligation for the alternate to except you unless emergency,...). And the more ridiculous my provided alternate was, the more safety I will build for myself and the diversion decision will made be quicker.

I seem to understand that final reserve fuel can be contained within the contingency fuel... that's a simple invitation for more diversions. Because when you arrive at the destination, you will need your diversion fuel no matter what. I reads like a flight planning that relies on the fact you'll be able to save fuel along the way... in many cases yes, but not always.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

It's the usual business story: you increase economical risk and get rewarded by cost savings as long as your operation is under tight control. Just In Time supply chains play with the same fire. When everything goes okay, you save money. When a tiny thing goes wrong, everything halts and you lose money by the bucketload. But it is not necessarily unsafe for the airplane; it is unsafe for the business. And safety is statistics.


Hoppie

[DougSnow]

For a US carrier, we have just one standard fuel rule, written in 1964. Here is a plan for a 777-200LR for a KLAX-EDDM under straight flag rules:


----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIGHT NBR XXXXXXXX      DATE 20APR22         SCHEDULE          PLAN
  ACFT REG NXXXXX         BIAS 0.5       KLAX STD 01.00      ETD 01.00
ACFT TYPE B77F                               TXO 00.25
                        SELCAL XXXX           STE 13.42      ETE 10.29
SPEED  CLB 250/310/84     WIND P043           TXI 00.08      STA 15.15
       CRZ CI 150          ISA P01       EDDM STA 15.15      ETA 11.54
       DSC 84/280/250    ROUTE 9500042001                  DIFF -03.13
ALTITUDE PROFILE
FL210 CAHIL/FL310 WINEN/FL330 MAXAR/FL350 ERAKA/FL370
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TANKERING NOT RECOMMENDED (LOSS 2957 USD / 10000 LB)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------
              FUEL  TIME  DIST NAM       PLANNED         OFP LIMIT WTS
BURN OFF     175987 10.29 5410 4956    PTOW  681.2        MTOW  752.8
ALTN/EDDF      9360 00.36 0178 0181    PLDW  505.2  MFW   MLDW  575.0
RESERVE        6687 00.30              PZFW  470.9 293.0  MZFW  540.7
HOLD              0 00.00              EPLD  155.8
10 PCT        14936 01.03 
DISP ADD          0 00.00
ETOPS ADDTL       0
REQUIRED     206970 12.38

TAXI           1825 00.25
TANKER            0
EXTRA          3315 00.15
TOTAL FUEL   212200

FUEL AT DEST  34298 02.24

PLANNED RUNWAYS
LAX/25R MUC/08L FRA/07R


63 minutes of fuel along for the ride on top of a 30 minute final reserve and due to the alternate of EDDF; yes I could reduce that with a redispatch, but if the weather is crap at that airport, a redispatch isn't  possible. Plus, a redispatch does impose the possibility of landing short, and the resulting schedule reliability issues, so I try and avoid redispatches except in very limited circumstances.

Some US operators can use what is called OpSpecs B043 - a 45 minute final reserve plus 10% of the time the airplane is in oceanic airspace, for more than 2 hours; 1980s fuel rule here...the original Pan Am asked for B043...


----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIGHT NBR XXXXXXX      DATE 20APR22         SCHEDULE          PLAN
  ACFT REG XXXXXX         BIAS 0.5       KLAX STD 01.00      ETD 01.00
ACFT TYPE B77F                               TXO 00.25
                        SELCAL XXXX           STE 13.42      ETE 10.29
SPEED  CLB 250/310/84     WIND P043           TXI 00.08      STA 15.15
       CRZ CI 150          ISA P01       EDDM STA 15.15      ETA 11.54
       DSC 84/280/250    ROUTE 9500042001                  DIFF -03.13
ALTITUDE PROFILE
FL210 CAHIL/FL310 WINEN/FL330 FERNO/FL350 ERAKA/FL370
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TANKERING NOT RECOMMENDED (LOSS 2804 USD / 10000 LB)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------
              FUEL  TIME  DIST NAM       PLANNED         OFP LIMIT WTS
BURN OFF     172670 10.29 5410 4954    PTOW  666.6        MTOW  749.5
ALTN/EDDF      9281 00.36 0178 0182    PLDW  493.9  MFW   MLDW  575.0
RESERVE       10497 00.45              PZFW  470.9 293.0  MZFW  547.0
HOLD              0 00.00              EPLD  155.8
B043              0 00.00
DISP ADD          0 00.00
ETOPS ADDTL       0
REQUIRED     192448 11.50

TAXI           1825 00.25
TANKER            0
EXTRA          3254 00.15
TOTAL FUEL   197600

FUEL AT DEST  23032 01.36

PLANNED RUNWAYS
LAX/25R MUC/08L FRA/07R


Same airplane but different regulator, this is the old EU-OPS 5%, reducible to 3% with an enroute alternate; but EU-Ops has a maximum contingency of 20 minutes. For the US operator, there is no maximum contingency fuel unlike EU-OPS... I can carry 90 minutes of contingency fuel under US 121 rules.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIGHT NBR XXXXXXX      DATE 20APR22         SCHEDULE          PLAN
  ACFT REG XXXXXX         BIAS 0.5       KLAX STD 01.00      ETD 01.00
ACFT TYPE B77F                               TXO 00.25
                        SELCAL XXXX           STE 13.42      ETE 10.29
SPEED  CLB 250/310/84     WIND P043           TXI 00.08      STA 15.15
       CRZ CI 150          ISA P01       EDDM STA 15.15      ETA 11.54
       DSC 84/280/250    ROUTE 9500042001                  DIFF -03.13
ALTITUDE PROFILE
FL210 CAHIL/FL290 YELAH/FL310 WINEN/FL330 FERNO/FL350 ERAKA/FL370
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TANKERING NOT RECOMMENDED (LOSS 2805 USD / 10000 LB)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------
              FUEL  TIME  DIST NAM       PLANNED         OFP LIMIT WTS
BURN OFF     172922 10.29 5410 4954    PTOW  667.6        MTOW  749.7
ALTN/EDDF      9284 00.36 0178 0182    PLDW  494.7  MFW   MLDW  575.0
RESERVE        6575 00.30              PZFW  470.9 293.0  MZFW  547.0
HOLD              0 00.00              EPLD  155.8
20M CONT       4671 00.20
DISP ADD          0 00.00
ETOPS ADDTL       0
REQUIRED     193452 11.55

TAXI           1825 00.25
TANKER            0
EXTRA          3258 00.15
TOTAL FUEL   198600

FUEL AT DEST  23788 01.41

PLANNED RUNWAYS
LAX/25R MUC/08L FRA/07R



Some US operators have what is called OpSpecs B343 - which allows the carrier to use their fuel burn performance (if they have sufficient operational history in the city pair), and reduce their fuel carriage. Two US passenger carriers have B343, one of the all-cargo operators are working on it, and the other all-cargo doesnt have it. If in this case the operator had B343, and their fuel burn performance for the aircraft type, city pair, and ETA  indicated a 2% enroute reserve was required (their expected overburn based on their statistical performance), this is the closest thing a US operator could get ICAO style fuel rules:


----------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIGHT NBR XXXXXXX      DATE 20APR22         SCHEDULE          PLAN
  ACFT REG XXXXXX         BIAS 0.5       KLAX STD 01.00      ETD 01.00
ACFT TYPE B77F                               TXO 00.25
                        SELCAL XXXX           STE 13.42      ETE 10.29
SPEED  CLB 250/310/84     WIND P043           TXI 00.08      STA 15.15
       CRZ CI 150          ISA P01       EDDM STA 15.15      ETA 11.54
       DSC 84/280/250    ROUTE 9500042001                  DIFF -03.13
ALTITUDE PROFILE
FL210 CAHIL/FL310 WINEN/FL330 FERNO/FL350 ERAKA/FL370
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TANKERING NOT RECOMMENDED (LOSS 2812 USD / 10000 LB)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------
              FUEL  TIME  DIST NAM       PLANNED         OFP LIMIT WTS
BURN OFF     171503 10.29 5410 4954    PTOW  665.3        MTOW  748.3
ALTN/EDDF     10130 00.36 0178 0182    PLDW  493.8  MFW   MLDW  575.0
RESERVE        6566 00.30              PZFW  470.9 293.0  MZFW  547.0
HOLD              0 00.00              EPLD  155.8
ACF90          2929 00.13 
DISP ADD          0 00.00
ETOPS ADDTL       0
REQUIRED     191128 11.48

TAXI           1825 00.25
TANKER            0
EXTRA          3253 00.15
TOTAL FUEL   196300

FUEL AT DEST  22878 01.34

PLANNED RUNWAYS
LAX/25R MUC/08L FRA/07R


For us, our "Bingo" fuel when considering a diversion is the sum of the final reserve, plus the fuel to the alternate; that sum goes into the FMS Reserves; lets say on this flight ATC indicated that 20 minutes of hold was possible. I'd go into FPS and calculate the fuel required from the holding fix, to EDDM, to then to EDDF, then land with 30 minutes remaining; whatever that sum is is our new bingo fuel and then the Cat and I talk about what's going on; if I need to stretch the hold, I may try and shorten the alternate if possible, or eliminate it if the weather supports it (and we know the reason for the hold, is it volume, loss of a runway, etc), or stuff it and lets go to the alternate now...