After an engine failure, the Commander of a Medium-Range Jet Transport (MRJT) aeroplane executes a drift-down procedure and stabilizes at a cruising altitude significantly below the normal cruising altitude. His/her decision to proceed to an adequate alternate, increases significantly the fuel consumption compared to the planned consumption. Although he/she has planned for Trip Fuel, Contingency Fuel, Alternate Fuel and Final Reserve Fuel, he/she has NOT included in the fuel planning a sufficient quantity for an engine-out situation. Which option is correct for the above scenario?
-
A
The Additional Fuel ensures that sufficient fuel is carried for such an event.
-
B
The Final Reserve Fuel must plan for such an event, and the fuel planning must therefore be INCORRECT.
-
C
Fuel for this event must be included in the Contingency Fuel; the fuel planning is therefore INCORRECT.
-
D
The Alternate Fuel must plan for such an event, and the fuel planning must therefore be INCORRECT.
Additional fuel changed slightly during the 2022 regulation change, however, questions that remain to be asked about it must conform correctly to the original definition, however, this particular question is actually covered by both the old and new regulations, as this particular scenario is the only thing that remains a part of the “additional fuel” consideration
NEW REGULATIONS
AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.181 Fuel/energy scheme - fuel/energy planning and in-flight re-planning policy — aeroplanes
Basic Fuel scheme
…(f) for additional fuel, include an amount of fuel that allows the aeroplane to proceed, in the event of an engine failure or loss of pressurisation, from the most critical point along the route to a fuel en route alternate (fuel ERA) aerodrome in the relevant aircraft configuration, hold there for 15 minutes at 1500 ft (450 m) above the aerodrome elevation in standard conditions, make an approach, and land;
Under the OLD REGULATIONS, the additional fuel was an amount of fuel which is only applicable to some operations and it can cater for the above, and a couple of other “what ifs” of a particular operation, including if no destination alternate was chosen (legally), 15 mins hold at 1500 ft would be added within additional fuel. That has now been moved to alternate fuel.
ADDITIONAL FUEL
Following loss of pressurisation, the drill will be to perform an emergency descent from cruise altitude down to 10 000 ft (potentially via a high terrain escape routing). Having completed the descent, the aircraft must divert and the fuel must be enough for this scenario. The fuel flow is always greater in this scenario due to the low altitude and airspeed.
In the event of an engine failure, the aircraft would be forced to descend to a lower altitude (potentially via a drift-down route over high ground) due to lack of thrust. This case could increase the fuel consumption in some cases, but is not the same as above as sometimes one-engine inoperative cruise can actually burn marginally less fuel, it's all dependent on the individual circumstance.
As a consequence, further uplifted fuel must be calculated during the pre-flight planning procedure, including fuel to descend as necessary, proceed to an adequate aerodrome, hold for 15 minutes at 1 500 ft and execute an approach/landing. This element of fuel would appear as Additional fuel on the flight plan, ensuring that sufficient fuel is carried for such an event.
As for the answer, we would say that this also means the fuel planning has been INCORRECTLY done, however feedback indicates that isn't present on the correct answer for some reason.
Your Notes (not visible to others)
This question has appeared on the real examination, you can find the related countries below.
-
Austro Control80
-
France67
-
Spain20
-
Greece12
-
Poland11
-
Norway8
-
Italy7
-
Latvia7
-
Sweden7
-
Switzerland7
-
Denmark6
-
Finland6
-
Germany6
-
Ireland6
-
Malta6
-
Romania5
-
Hungary4
-
Iceland3
-
Luxembourg3
-
Belgium2
-
Czech Republic2
-
Lithuania2
-
Slovakia2
-
United Kingdom2
-
Portugal1
-
Serbia1
-
Slovenia1