9976 Fuel Planning and Fuel Management PDF

Doc 9976
Flight Planning and

Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual
First Edition — 2015
Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

Doc 9976
Flight Planning and

Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual
First Edition — 2015
Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General

Published in separate English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian
and Spanish editions by the
999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7
For ordering information and for a complete listing of sales agents

and booksellers, please go to the ICAO website at www.icao.int
First edition, 2015
Doc 9976, Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual

Order Number: 9976
ISBN 978-92-9249-838-2
© ICAO 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior
permission in writing from the International Civil Aviation Organization.
AMENDMENTS
Amendments are announced in the supplements to the Products and Services

Catalogue; the Catalogue and its supplements are available on the ICAO
website at www.icao.int. The space below is provided to keep a record of such
amendments.
RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA
AMENDMENTS CORRIGENDA
No. Date Entered by No. Date Entered by
(iii)
FOREWORD
This manual, referenced in ICAO Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part I — International Commercial Air Transport —
Aeroplanes, provides operational guidance material that addresses the specific safety risks associated with alternate
aerodrome selection, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management. It also provides guidance material to assist States,
civil aviation authorities, and the operators under their jurisdiction, in the development and/or implementation of
prescriptive regulations and performance-based variations to such regulations based on Sections 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 and
4.3.7 of Annex 6, Part I.
In a rapidly changing global economy, the international air transport industry must continuously adapt to new trends and
increasingly competitive market conditions. While technological improvements in aviation continue to increase reliability
and predictability, economic and environmental concerns will continue to compel operators to use fuel more efficiently.
Consequently all operators, including those leveraging existing technologies and those investing in new technologies to
meet operational challenges, should be afforded the opportunity to receive a return on their investments.
The technological leaps in aviation made over the last century would not have been possible without parallel
achievements in the control and reduction of safety risks. It is only through the disciplined application of the best safety
risk management practices that the frequency and severity of aviation occurrences can continue to decline.
Until recently, ICAO Annex 6, Part I, provided very general guidance for alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning.
It distinguished between propeller and jet aeroplanes without sufficient justification, and alternate aerodrome selection
criteria and contingency fuel requirements were not sufficiently detailed. This lack of detail in Annex 6 may have resulted
in the implementation of extremely conservative and prescriptive national policies for flight planning that are not
adaptable to a rapidly changing and increasingly complex operating environment.
Amendment 36 to Annex 6, Part I, ushered in a new era where operators can improve overall operational efficiency and
reduce emissions by implementing national regulations based on globalized prescriptive standards or operational
variations from such standards based on an individual operator’s ability to achieve target levels of safety performance.
These variations from precise guidance are contingent on the use of hard data and the application of safety risk
management principles. The challenge remains, however, for civil aviation authorities to define appropriately all of the
regulations that allow operators to optimize fuel carriage while maintaining safe flight operations.
Many modern civil aviation authorities are also increasing emphasis on performance-based approaches to regulatory
compliance. Many modern-day operators also have the capability and resources necessary to analyse operational
hazards, manage safety risks to levels as low as reasonably practicable and achieve target levels of safety performance.
Taken together, these elements provide operational flexibility and form the framework for a proactive, self-correcting and
continually improving safety system.
______________________
(v)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................ (v)
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. (xi)
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................ (xiii)
Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview of the Manual ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 History ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Relationship to Annex 6, Part I, provisions and other ICAO documents .............................................. 1-1
1.3 Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.5 Concept ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.6 Structure of the manual ....................................................................................................................... 1-4
Chapter 2. Safety, Operational Efficiency and Emission Reduction ............................................................. 2-1
2.1 The relationship between safety, efficiency and the environment ....................................................... 2-1
2.2 Advances in operational and fuel planning .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Opportunities for operational efficiency in a performance-based regulatory environment ................... 2-2
Chapter 3. Prescriptive and Performance-Based Compliance with Regulation........................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 National alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations ................................................ 3-2
3.3 Factors that drive differences in alternate aerodrome and fuel planning regulations ........................... 3-3
3.4 The role of infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.5 Capability of the air traffic management (ATM) system and associated infrastructure ....................... 3-4
3.6 Aerodrome infrastructure and condition reporting (quality of NOTAM information) ............................. 3-4
3.7 Quality of meteorological reporting and forecasting ............................................................................ 3-5
3.8 Advanced technologies and data analysis capabilities ........................................................................ 3-5
3.9 Operational control, flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch capabilities .............................. 3-6
3.10 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 3-6
Appendix 1 to Chapter 3. National Alternate Aerodrome Selection and

Fuel Planning Regulation Models ....................................................................................................................... 3-A1-1
Appendix 2 to Chapter 3. Example of a United States OpSpec that provides conditional relief
from IFR no-alternate requirements (Paragraph C355, Alternate Aerodrome IFR Weather Minimums:
14 CFR Part 121) ................................................................................................................................................... 3-A2-1
(vii)
(viii) Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual
Page
Chapter 4. Understanding Prescriptive Compliance ...................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 History ................................................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.3 Objectives of prescriptive compliance ................................................................................................. 4-3
4.4 Prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning provisions of Annex 6, Part I................ 4-3
4.5 Take-off alternate aerodromes — selection and specification ............................................................. 4-4
4.6 Take-off alternate aerodromes — distance from aerodrome of departure ........................................... 4-5
4.7 Take-off alternate aerodromes — operating minima at estimated time of use .................................... 4-6
4.8 En-route alternate aerodrome selection and specification .................................................................. 4-6
4.9 Destination alternate aerodromes — selection and specification: one destination alternate ............... 4-10
4.10 Destination alternate aerodromes — isolated aerodrome planning and Point of No Return (PNR) ..... 4-11
4.11 Destination alternate aerodromes — selection and specification: two destination alternates .............. 4-12
4.12 Meteorological conditions — VFR flight .............................................................................................. 4-14
4.13 Meteorological conditions — commencing or continuing an IFR flight ................................................ 4-14
4.14 Alternate aerodrome planning minima — establishing incremental values for ceiling and visibility ..... 4-15
4.15 Alternate aerodrome planning minima — establishing estimated time of use ..................................... 4-18
4.16 Pre-flight fuel planning — basic fuel planning and deviations from the planned operation .................. 4-20
4.17 Pre-flight fuel planning — basis for calculation of required usable fuel ............................................... 4-20
4.18 Pre-flight fuel planning — components of the pre-flight calculation of required usable fuel ................. 4-21
4.19 Pre-flight fuel planning — taxi fuel ....................................................................................................... 4-24
4.20 Pre-flight fuel planning — trip fuel ....................................................................................................... 4-25
4.21 Pre-flight fuel planning — contingency fuel ......................................................................................... 4-27
4.22 Pre-flight fuel planning — alternate fuel............................................................................................... 4-28
4.23 Pre-flight fuel planning — final reserve fuel ......................................................................................... 4-29
4.24 Pre-flight fuel planning — additional fuel ............................................................................................. 4-29
4.25 Pre-flight fuel planning — discretionary fuel ........................................................................................ 4-30
4.26 Pre-flight fuel planning — minimum fuel for commencement of flight and/or to continue
from the point of in-flight re-planning ................................................................................................... 4-33
4.27 Pre-flight fuel planning — basic prescriptive calculation example ....................................................... 4-35
4.28 The use of fuel after flight commencement.......................................................................................... 4-37
4.29 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4-38
Appendix 1 to Chapter 4. Example of a United States OpSpec for the application of planning minima
(Paragraph C055, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums: 14 CFR Part 121).............................................. 4-A1-1
Appendix 2 to Chapter 4. Examples of Prescriptive Flight Planning Processes that conform

to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.1 .................................................................................................................................... 4-A2-1
Chapter 5. Performance-based Compliance ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Understanding performance-based compliance .................................................................................. 5-1
5.3 Annex 6, Part I, provisions for variations in alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning ............. 5-7
5.4 Core criteria for capable operators ...................................................................................................... 5-11
5.5 Safety oversight by State..................................................................................................................... 5-44
5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 5-45
Appendix 1 to Chapter 5. Example of requirements for an operational variation from

Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.2 — Take-off alternate aerodromes ............................................................................. 5-A1-1
Table of Contents (ix)
Page
Appendix 2 to Chapter 5. Example of requirements for operational variations from

Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3 — Destination alternate aerodromes .......................................................................... 5-A2-1
Appendix 3 to Chapter 5. Examples of requirements for flight planning processes that

depend on the advanced use of alternate aerodromes in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6 ............... 5-A3-1
Appendix 4 to Chapter 5. Examples of methodologies for contingency fuel calculations

used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c) and in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6. .................... 5-A4-1
Appendix 5 to Chapter 5. Example of a fuel consumption monitoring (FCM) programme

used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 a) and/or Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6 b) ............................................. 5-A5-1
Appendix 6 to Chapter 5. Example of a statistical taxi fuel programme used to conform

to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 a) and in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6…. ............................................. 5-A6-1
Appendix 7 to Chapter 5. A performance-based approach job-aid for an approving Authority ................. 5-A7-1
Chapter 6. In-flight Fuel Management .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Operator fuel policy and fostering the appropriate operational culture ................................................ 6-2
6.3 Scope of flight crew and flight operations officer policies and procedures........................................... 6-3
6.4 Completing the planned flight safely .................................................................................................... 6-4
6.5 Protecting final reserve fuel ................................................................................................................. 6-14
6.6 In-flight fuel checks and fuel management policies and procedures ................................................... 6-16
6.7 Requesting delay information from ATC .............................................................................................. 6-18
6.8 Minimum fuel declarations ................................................................................................................... 6-18
6.9 Emergency declarations ...................................................................................................................... 6-20
6.10 Minimum fuel and MAYDAY (due to fuel) declaration scenarios ......................................................... 6-20
Scenario 1: MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL — An aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan
with a destination alternate aerodrome on file. ................................................................................... 6-21
Scenario 2: MINIMUM FUEL — An aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan with a filed destination
alternate aerodrome and diverts after holding near the original destination aerodrome. ..................... 6-24
Scenario 3: MINIMUM FUEL —The aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan with a filed alternate
and is forced to divert to an alternate aerodrome. ............................................................................... 6-26
Scenario 4: MINIMUM FUEL —The aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan with a filed alternate
and is forced to divert to an alternate aerodrome. ............................................................................... 6-28
6.11 Flight crew occurrence reporting procedures and responsibilities ....................................................... 6-29
Appendix 1 to Chapter 6. Considerations for flight crew procedures to preserve contingency fuel
and for flight plan re-analysis and adjustment after the consumption of contingency fuel
prior to take-off ................................................................................................................................................... 6-A1-1
References
______________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As work progressed on the amendment proposal to Annex 6, Part I, it became evident that the scope and permanency
of related guidance materials made them suitable for inclusion in a manual. As such, under the direction of the
Secretariat and during the Twelfth Meeting of the Operations Panel Working Group of the Whole (OPSPWG/WHL/12) in
November 2010, the Fuel Use Sub-Group (FUSG) of the Operations Panel was charged with the creation and ongoing
revision of the Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual.
This manual aims to accomplish two things: first and foremost, it provides the expanded guidance material necessary to
support the implementation of national regulations based on each Standard and Recommended Practice in
Amendment 36 to Annex 6, Part I. Additionally and more specifically, it provides overall and extensive guidance on how
civil aviation authorities (CAAs) and operators can cooperate to derive the greatest benefit from their collective flight
operations and fuel planning experiences.
The manual contains a short history of the development of the amendment as well as expanded explanations of the new
texts relating to alternate aerodrome selection, fuel planning and operational variations. It also provides guidance on
how to conduct in-flight fuel management, including re-planning, re-dispatch, decision point and isolated aerodrome
planning. Additional sections detail the relationships among safety, environment, and efficiency, as well as discuss how
safety risk management (SRM) principles can be applied to achieve target levels of safety performance.
The primary goal in formulating the manual is to maintain the safety of flight operations. A secondary goal is to improve
operational efficiency by reducing fuel uplift and the resultant aircraft operating mass. To accomplish these goals, the
manual was developed using two parallel and equally important approaches.
The first, or regulatory approach, sought to take full advantage of the experiences and expertise of the State regulators
that participated in the FUSG. As fuel planning is relatively mature at the regulatory level, the FUSG was able to
leverage years of experience in implementing baseline prescriptive requirements as well as allowable operational
variations from such requirements that are contingent on the demonstrable capabilities of each individual operator.
The second, or industry approach, involved leveraging the collective operational experience of air carriers around the
world as expressed by industry advisors to the FUSG. This effort explored industry best practices in implementing
flexible alternate aerodrome selection and fuel policies that produce operational efficiencies while maintaining proven
levels of safety performance.
These two approaches were merged by the FUSG to create a seamless document that begins by introducing the
perspective of several national models for alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations. These models
were introduced to support both Amendment 36 to Annex 6, Part I, and the guidance in this manual. They demonstrate
how modern prescriptive and performance-based approaches to safety can be incorporated into national regulations.
The manual is also amply supported by Appendices that provide additional and extensive supplementary material
including guidance on how to implement operational variations that are based on an individual operator’s performance
and demonstrable capabilities.
______________________
(xi)
GLOSSARY
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACARS Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System

ACF Analysed Contingency Fuel
ADS Automatic dependent surveillance
ADS-B Automatic dependent surveillance – Broadcast
ADS-C Automatic dependent surveillance – Contract
AEO All Engines Operating
AFIS Aerodrome Flight Information Service
AFM Aeroplane flight manual
ALARP As low as reasonably practicable
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
AOM Aeroplane Operations Manual
APM Aircraft Performance Monitoring
ASF Aircraft Stable Frame
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATM Air traffic management
ATS Air traffic services
AWS Automatic Weather System
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CAT I Category I
CAT II Category II
CAT III Category III
CB Cumulonimbus
CDL Configuration Deviation List
CDM Collaborative Decision Making
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFS Critical fuel scenario
DA/H Decision Altitude/Height
DARP Dynamic Airborne Re-route Procedure
DP Decision Point
EDTO Extended Diversion Time Operations
EFC Expect further clearance
ERA En-route Alternate
ETA Estimated Time of Arrival
ETD Estimated Time of Departure
ETP Equal Time Point
EU-OPS European Operations
EUROCONTROL European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FCM Fuel Consumption Monitoring
FL Flight Level
FMS Flight Management System
FOO Flight Operations Officer
FPFM Flight Planning and Fuel Management
(xiii)
(xiv) Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM)Manual
FUSG Fuel Use Sub-Group

GBAS Ground Based Augmentation System
GLS GBAS Landing System
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS/WAAS Global Positioning System with Wide Area Augmentation
IAF Initial approach fix
IAP Instrument Approach Procedure
IATA International Air Transport Association
IFR Instrument flight rules
IFSDR In-flight shut down rate
ILS Instrument landing system
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JAR-OPS Joint Aviation Requirement for the operation of commercial air transport
LNAV Lateral Navigation
LPV Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance
m metre
MDA/H Minimum Descent Altitude/Height
MEL Minimum Equipment List
METAR Aerodrome routine meteorological report
NAVAID Navigation Aid
NOTAM Notice to Airmen
OEI One Engine Inoperative
OEM Original equipment manufacturer
OFP Operational Flight Plan
OPMET Operational meteorological information
OpSpecs Operations Specifications
PBN Performance-based navigation
PDP Pre-determined Point Procedure
PIC Pilot in Command
PNR Point of no return
RCF Reduced Contingency Fuel Procedure
RNAV Area Navigation
RNP Required Navigation Performance
RNP AR Required Navigation Performance – Approval Required
RVR Runway Visual Range
SA Safety Assurance
SAR Specific Air Range
SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices (ICAO)
SATCOM Satellite Communications
SBAS Satellite Based Augmentation System
SCF Statistical Contingency Fuel
SELCAL Selective Calling
SFC Specific Fuel Consumption
SIGMET Information concerning the occurrence or expected occurrence of specified en-route weather
phenomena which may affect the safety of aircraft operations
SME Subject Matter Expert
SMM Safety Management Manual (Doc 9859)
SMS Safety Management System
SOP Standard operating procedure
SPECI Aerodrome special meteorological report
SPI Safety performance indicator
SRM Safety Risk Management
SSP State Safety Programme
Glossary (xv)
TAF Aerodrome Forecast

TEMPO Temporary or temporarily
TMU Traffic Management Unit
TSO Technical Standard Order
UPR User Preferred Route
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VMC Visual meteorological conditions
VOR Very high frequency omnidirectional range
WAAS Wide Area Augmentation System
WP sr Point of Sole Reliance
Wx Weather conditions
ZFW Zero fuel weight
DEFINITIONS
When the following terms are used in this manual, they have the following meanings:
Alert level. An established line of demarcation outside of the acceptable operating range that requires an adjustment or
evaluation but does not necessarily indicate a process failure.
Note.— Alert levels are related to specific operational activities and are established by regulators and operators for
the purposes of adjustment and/or evaluation prior to the exceedance of an operational parameter or limit.
City-pair. Route flown between an origin aerodrome to a planned destination aerodrome.
Commencement of flight. The moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off.
Compliance-based regulatory oversight. The conventional and prescriptive method of ensuring safety used by a
State’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) that requires strict conformance to pre-established, non-variable regulations
by the operator.
Contingency fuel. An amount of fuel required to compensate for unforeseen factors, which is five per cent of the
planned trip fuel or of the fuel required from the point of in-flight re-planning based on the consumption rate used to
plan the trip fuel, but in any case shall not be lower than the amount required to fly for five minutes at holding speed
at 450 m (1 500 ft) above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions.
Note.— For the purposes of applying the provisions, the terms “point of in-flight re-planning”, “re-release point”,
“re-dispatch point” and “decision point” are synonymous.
Decision point. The nominated point, or points, en route beyond which a flight can proceed provided defined
operational requirements, including fuel, are met. If these requirements cannot be met, the flight will proceed to a
nominated alternate aerodrome.
Note 1.— The operational requirements to be met are specified by the operator and approved, if required, by the
State.
Note 2.— Once past the final decision point, the flight may not have the ability to divert and may be committed to
landing at the destination aerodrome.
Flight following. The recording in real time of departure and arrival messages by operational personnel to ensure that a
flight is operating and has arrived at the destination aerodrome.
(xvi) Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM)Manual
Flight monitoring. In addition to requirements defined for flight following, flight monitoring includes the:
1) operational monitoring of flights by suitably qualified operational control personnel from the point of departure
throughout all phases of flight;
2) communication of all available and relevant safety information between the operational control personnel on the
ground and the flight crew; and
3) provision of critical assistance to the flight crew in the event of an in-flight emergency or security issue or at the
request of the flight crew.
Flight watch. In addition to all of the elements defined for flight following and flight monitoring, flight watch includes the
active tracking of a flight by suitably qualified operational control personnel throughout all phases of the flight to
ensure that it is following its prescribed route, without unplanned deviation, diversion or delay and in order to satisfy
State requirements.
Hazard. A condition or an object with the potential to cause injuries to personnel, damage to equipment or structures,
loss of material, or a reduction in the ability to perform a prescribed function. A consequence of a hazard is defined
as the potential outcome(s) of a hazard. The damaging potential of a hazard materializes through its
consequence(s).
Note.— Examples of hazards relevant to flight planning and fuel management include: meteorological conditions
(adverse, extreme and space), geophysical events (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunami), air traffic management
(ATM) congestion, mechanical failure, geography (adverse terrain, large bodies of water), aerodrome constraints
(isolated, runway closure), and any other condition with undesirable potential consequences.
Operation Specifications (OpSpecs). The authorizations, conditions and limitations associated with the air operator
certificate and subject to the conditions in the operations manual.
Note.— Operational variations from prescriptive regulations, if permitted by a State’s CAA, are often expressed in
OpSpecs, Deviations, Alternative Means of Compliance (AMC), Exemptions, Concessions, Special Authorizations or
other instruments.
Operational control. The direction and regulation of flight operations. The direction is in the form of policy and
procedure in compliance with regulation. Regulation is the statutory requirement stipulated by the CAA of the State
of the Operator.
Note.— An operator, in exercising operational control, exercises the authority over the initiation, continuation,
diversion or termination of a flight in the interest of the safety of the aircraft and the regularity and efficiency of the flight.
Operational flight plan. The operator’s plan for the safe conduct of the flight based on considerations of aeroplane
performance, other operating limitations and relevant expected conditions on the route to be followed and at the
aerodromes concerned.
Operational variations. Deviations, Alternative Means of Compliance (AMC), Exemptions, Concessions, Special
Authorizations or other instruments used by a CAA to approve performance-based alternatives to prescriptive
regulations.
Note 1.— Operational variations to the alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning provisions are described in
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.6.6.
Note 2.— For the purposes of this manual the terms “variation”, “operational variation” and “performance-based
variation” are synonymous and can be used interchangeably.
Glossary (xvii)
Performance-based compliance. A safety-risk-based approach to regulatory compliance that involves the setting or
application of target levels of safety performance of a system or process, which in turn facilitates the implementation
of variable regulations or operational variations from existing prescriptive regulations.
Note.— Performance-based compliance is supported by proactive operator processes that constantly monitor the
real-time performance, hazards and safety risks of a system.
Performance-based regulatory oversight. A method, supplementary to the compliance-based oversight method,

taken by a State’s CAA, which supports the implementation of variable regulations or variations from existing
prescriptive regulations, based on the demonstrable capabilities of the operator and the incorporation of safety-risk-
based methods for the setting or application of target levels of safety performance.
Note.— Performance-based regulatory oversight components rely on State processes that constantly monitor the
real-time performance, hazards and risks of a system to assure that target levels of safety performance are achieved in
an air transportation system.
Point of in-flight re-planning. A geographic point at which an aeroplane can continue to the aerodrome of intended
landing (planned destination) or divert to an intermediate (alternate) aerodrome if the flight arrives at the point with
inadequate fuel to complete the flight to the planned destination while maintaining the required fuel including
reserve.
Prescriptive compliance. A conventional means of achieving target levels of safety performance of a system or
process based on operator compliance with pre-established, non-variable standards or limitations.
Safety. The state in which the possibility of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at or
below, an acceptable level through a continuing process of hazard identification and safety risk management.
Safety indicator. A collation of high-consequence safety-related data for the purpose of monitoring, measuring or
analysis.
Note.— Examples of relevant safety data may include: hull losses due to fuel starvation and occurrences of landing
with less than final reserve fuel.
Safety measurement. Refers to the measurement of selected high-level, high-consequence outcomes, such as
accident and serious incidents.
Note.— Example of a relevant safety measurement: [insert number] hull losses due to fuel exhaustion in [insert
number] operations.
Safety performance indicator. A collation of lower consequence safety-related data for the purpose of monitoring,
measuring or analysis.
Note.— Examples of relevant safety data may include: occurrences of the complete consumption of contingency
fuel (plus discretionary, if applicable), diversions due to fuel, and occurrences of trip fuel over-burn.
Safety performance measurement. Refers to the measurement of selected lower consequence outcomes, such as
routine incidents or surveillance findings.
Note 1.— Example of a relevant safety performance measurement: [insert number] occurrences of the complete
consumption of contingency fuel (plus discretionary, if applicable) per [insert number] operations.
Note 2.— The complete consumption of contingency fuel may be considered a high-consequence event depending
on the operational context (e.g. no alternate aerodrome nominated).
(xviii) Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM)Manual
Safety risk. The composite of predicted severity (how bad) and likelihood (how probable) of the potential effect of a
hazard in its worst credible (reasonable or believable) system state.
Note.— For the purposes of this manual, the terms “safety risk” and “risk” are interchangeable.
Safety risk control. A characteristic of a system that reduces the potential undesirable effects of a hazard. Controls
may include process design, equipment modification, work procedures, training or protective devices. Safety risk
controls are written in the form of requirements, are measurable, and are monitored to ensure effectiveness.
Safety target value. The concrete objective of the level of safety.
Note.— Example of a relevant safety target value: Reduce by [insert number] the occurrences of landing with less
than final reserve fuel per [insert number] operations.
Target level of safety performance. The minimum degree of safety of an operational activity, expressed through safety
performance indicators, which has been established by the State and is practically assured by an operator through
the achievement of safety targets.
______________________
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE MANUAL
1.1 HISTORY
1.1.1 The provisions on alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning that became Amendment 36 to Annex 6,
Part I, were part of a joint IATA and ICAO initiative to improve aeroplane fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. A realistic,
modern approach was needed that would take into account operational experience, new technologies and advanced
aeroplane capabilities while providing for safe operations through the use of modern methods including operational data
analysis and safety risk management (SRM). The task to draft the amendment was undertaken by the Operations Panel
in 2008 and progressed through a series of meetings and correspondence among members.
1.1.2 The principal purpose of Amendment 36 was to introduce globally harmonized planning criteria for the
selection of alternate aerodromes and the pre-flight computation of total fuel supply. Additionally, new Standards and
Recommended Practices were added to describe the responsibilities of the operator and the duties of the pilot-in-
command (PIC) with respect to in-flight fuel management. Of particular note is better guidance for the PIC with regard to
declaring minimum fuel and a new requirement for the PIC to declare an emergency when the predicted usable fuel
upon landing at the nearest aerodrome, where a safe landing can be made, is less than the planned final reserve fuel.
This gives the PIC a clear course of action to be followed when actual fuel use results in the likelihood of a landing with
less than final reserve fuel.
1.1.3 Finally, it is recognized that many States and operators often employ statistically driven performance-
based methods and SRM principles when developing or applying alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning
regulations, systems or processes. Such methods complement conventional approaches to regulatory compliance and
are used to achieve and maintain target levels of safety performance that are acceptable to the State and the operator.
1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO ANNEX 6, PART I, SARPS AND OTHER ICAO DOCUMENTS
This manual provides guidance material for alternate aerodrome selection, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management
in accordance with the International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) of Annex 6 — Operation of
Aircraft, Part I — International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes. It also borrows from ICAO’s Safety
Management Manual (SMM) (Doc 9859) but places the SRM concepts espoused in Doc 9859 into an operationally
relevant context.
1.3 SCOPE
The scope of this manual is limited to providing detailed information related to the alternate aerodrome selection, fuel
planning and in-flight fuel management SARPs in Annex 6, Part I, and to support the implementation of:
a) prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management regulations
based on Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 and 4.3.7;
1-1
1-2 Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual
b) operational variations to prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection regulations in accordance with

Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4; and
c) operational variations to prescriptive fuel planning and fuel management regulations in accordance
with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, including performance-based measures in which assessment of historical
fuel use can substantiate a safety case supporting a reduction in contingency fuel to be carried on
board an aeroplane.
Note.— The content of this manual does not relieve operators from their obligations under relevant national
regulations, nor does it relieve States from those Standards arising from the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(ICAO Doc 7300) and its Annexes.
1.4 OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 Annex 6, Part I, SARPs provide the basis for prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection, flight planning and
fuel management regulations and operational variations from such regulations if an operator can implement
performance-based methods acceptable to the State. Annex 6, however, does not provide specific details for States and
operators to optimize the selection of alternate aerodromes or the carriage of fuel based on the implementation of either
method. With this in mind, the objectives of this manual are to provide States and operators with:
a) detailed guidance material to support Annex 6, Part I, prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection, fuel
planning and in-flight fuel management SARPs;
b) different means of conformance with the applicable Annex 6, Part I, SARPs intended to assist
operators and CAAs to ensure the safe conduct of flights;
c) guidance material for the development of prescriptive and performance-based compliance methods;
d) guidance on the application of operational variations including knowledge of implementation

strategies, criteria requirements, processes, controls and data/collection requirements;
e) knowledge of the necessary expertise, sophistication, technology, experience and other attributes of
States and operators needed to develop, approve or implement performance-based regulations or
variations from existing prescriptive regulations. Such guidance is provided for the purpose of
differentiating between States and operators capable of implementing performance-based methods
and those that should initially use a well-defined prescriptive method;
f) knowledge of the components of operational control systems that support implementation of

performance-based regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations;
g) knowledge of the SRM principles necessary to implement performance-based methods, systems,

measures, planning or variations;
h) operationally specific guidance material related to identifying hazards and managing safety risks
including guidance for the development of operationally specific data analysis, safety risk analysis and
assessment tools;
i) specific details on how to calculate the total fuel required to complete a planned flight safely;
j) knowledge of the means for the operator to optimize the carriage of fuel based on prescriptive and/or
performance-based compliance with regulations; and
Chapter 1. Introduction and
a Overview of
o the Manual 1-3
k) guidance e material to assist in the dev

velopment of p
procedures forr operational pe
ersonnel involvved with
in-flight fuel
f monitoring and managem ment.
1.4.2 Alternate aerrodrome selecttion and fuel planning

p shouldd be considereed within the ccontext of the rrequired
flight preparration activities provided in Annex
A 6, Part I. Therefore, th
he information presented in tthis manual shhould be
used in conjunction with an n operational control
c system approved by th he State’s CAA
A, implemented d by the opera
ator and,
if appropriatee, with applicabble Extended Diversion
D Time Operations (E EDTO) requirem ments.
1.5 CONCEPT
1.5.1 This manual is organized using a build ding block co ncept designe ed to accompllish the objecctives of
Section 1.4 (see Figure 1.1). The manuaal initially prese
ents the basic operational rea
alities that undderlie the development
of alternate aerodrome selection and fuel management regulations byy a CAA. These e realities are tthen framed w
within the
context of th
he two predomiinant approach
hes to regulatorry compliance and safety: the e conventional prescriptive ap pproach
and the conttemporary perfformance-based approach.
1.5.2 The manual then defines the attributes of those Sta ates and opera ators with the capabilities too adopt
performancee-based approa aches to regullatory complian nce and those e that would be e better served by following a well-
defined and prescriptive appproach. It acco
omplishes this by first explain ning the prescrriptive SARPs oof Annex 6, Pa
art I. The
manual thenn identifies the additional com
mponents neces ssary to suppo ort performance e-based regula
ations or perforrmance-
based comppliance with exiisting prescriptive regulations
s. All of this is a
accomplished with the intent to build a brid
dge from
the conventiional approach h to safety to the
t contemporary approach tthat uses proccess-based pro oduction methoods and
SRM princip
ples.
Figure 1-1. Manual co

oncept
1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL
1.6.1 Chapters 1 through 3 form the foundation of the manual and provide the context for the expanded
guidance in the succeeding chapters. Chapters 4 through 6 follow the structure of Annex 6, Part I, very closely and
provide specific references to the SARPs and external documents, where appropriate. Chapters are also supported,
where necessary, by appendices that further expand chapter guidance and/or provide supportive examples derived from
existing national practices in alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning. The appendices appear immediately
following the chapter they support.
1.6.2 Chapter 4 provides expanded guidance related to the prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection and fuel
planning SARPs of Annex 6, Part I. It is intended to assist States and operators in implementing prescriptive regulations
in compliance-based regulatory environments. It also identifies, by example, means of compliance that may be used by
a State or an operator to conform to the provisions of Annex 6.
1.6.3 Chapter 5 fleshes out the concept of the performance-based approach to safety as it relates to alternate
aerodrome selection and fuel planning. It is intended to support the introduction of performance-based regulations or
variations from existing prescriptive regulations as described in Annex 6, Part I. The chapter begins by identifying the
organizational and operational capabilities required to implement performance-based variations. It goes on to identify
elements common to all performance-based systems, programmes and/or processes as well as identify, by example, the
additional elements necessary to implement specific variations.
1.6.4 Chapter 5 does not attempt to address every potential variation sought by an operator or accepted by a
State. More importantly, it seeks to define precisely the components of performance-based methods, the capabilities of
an operator necessary to support those methods and the capabilities of a State to monitor their efficacy. This was done
specifically to ensure that the components that underlie the performance-based approach to safety are appropriately and
effectively implemented prior to the application of any operational variation.
1.6.5 Chapter 6 completes the manual with an expansion of the in-flight fuel management provisions of Annex 6,
Part I, including those related to the protection of final reserve fuel and the declarations of minimum fuel and a fuel
emergency.
______________________
Chapter 2
SAFETY, OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND EMISSION REDUCTION
2.1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAFETY, EFFICIENCY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
2.1.1 Although the contribution of aviation emissions to the total CO2 emissions is relatively small, scheduled
aviation traffic continues to grow. Scheduled traffic is currently growing at a rate of 5.8 per cent per year and is projected
to grow at a rate of 4.6 per cent per year through 2025 1 . This growth rate raises questions regarding the future
contributions of global aviation activities, their environmental impact and the most effective way of addressing carbon
emissions.
2.1.2 Growing financial competition has also encouraged many airlines to implement fuel conservation and
operational efficiency programmes. The use of such programmes continues to increase, and they tend to form the
cornerstones of an airline’s emission-reduction efforts. It is important to note, however, that such programmes seek to
reduce overall fuel consumption without compromising the safety of flight operations. In order to ensure safety as an
outcome of an operational activity, airlines rely on the structured application of safety risk management principles.
2.1.3 With this in mind, the modern aviation community increasingly recognizes the need to complement existing
compliance-based approaches to safety with a performance-based component as a means to increase overall
operational efficiency. This potential for increased efficiency requires a measure of operational flexibility that may not be
possible in a purely compliance-based environment. In the proper environment, however, such flexibility can yield
significant efficiencies while maintaining or improving levels of safety. As such, many consider the incorporation of
performance-based elements into the regulatory framework as an important step in minimizing the environmental impact
of aviation emissions.
2.1.4 With Amendment 36 to Annex 6, Part I, CAAs can work with operators to improve overall operational
efficiency and reduce emissions by introducing a performance-based approach to regulatory compliance. Such an
approach can foster statistically driven and risk-managed alternatives to prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection and
fuel planning regulations. These alternatives complement existing compliance-based regulations and can be effectively
utilized within the greater context of reactive, predictive and proactive regulatory environments that understand, apply
and assess the efficacy of continuous SRM.
2.2 ADVANCES IN OPERATIONAL AND FUEL PLANNING
2.2.1 The origins of the previous Annex 6, Part I, fuel provisions are traceable as far back as 1949 when
meteorological reports were far less reliable, in-flight fuel use was less predictable, and assistance from dispatch
services to update pre-flight planning assumptions was inconsistent or non-existent. The fuel planning criteria were also
outdated, and the provisions were insufficient to support the use of modern planning tools or to maximize efficiency. As a
result, operators often carried excess fuel.
1. For additional information regarding aviation emission reduction, please refer to ICAO’s Operational Opportunities to Minimize
Fuel Use and Reduce Emissions (Cir 303).
2-1
2-2 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
2.2.2 Advances in computerized flight

f planning and flight man
nagement syste ems (FMS) brin ng increased aaccuracy
and predictaability to operattional and fuel planning. Theese systems allso provide rea analysis capab bilities based on actual
conditions. Statistically-ba
S sed fuel consumption programmes accura uel burn and contingency fu
ately predict fu uel use.
Alternate ae
erodrome selec ction and fuel planning
p methoodologies havee also evolved steadily over d decades of con ntinuous
use. Finally,, advances in flight followingg, flight monito
oring and/or fliight watch cap de systemic defenses
pabilities provid
against num
merous safety risks while proviiding increased d opportunities for operationaal efficiency.
2.2.3 These and other

o developm ments have inc creased operattional reliabilityy and predictabbility significan
ntly over
decades wh hile increasing the efficacy of both prescrip ptive and perfo
ormance-based d compliance w with regulation n. Either
method of regulatory
r com
mpliance when properly emplloyed by opera ators with dem monstrable cap pabilities can o optimize
alternate aerrodrome selecttion and flight planning
p withou
ut compromisinng the safety off flight operatio
ons.
2.3 OPPOR
RTUNITIES FO
OR OPERATIO
ONAL EFFICIE
ENCY IN A PER
RFORMANCE--BASED
REGULATOORY ENVIRONNMENT
2.3.1 Today, fuel represents

r a significant portio
on of the operrational costs o
of an airline. T
Therefore, the efficient
use of fuel is increasingly important to thhe cost-effectiv ne operations. If the amount of fuel carried
veness of airlin d on any
given flight can be reduced, through prescriptive compliance
c witth globally haarmonized regulations and/o or while
maintaining target levels of safety perfo ormance, the mass-savings will be directtly translated tto reduced fue el burn.
Reduced fue el burn equates wer operating costs and lowerr emissions.
s directly to low
2.3.2 Some States s may have only prescriptive regulations an nd compliance--based oversig ght capabilities that do
not allow op perators the opperational flexiibility to take full
f advantage of modern flig ght planning and flight mana agement
capabilities. Other States, however, that have adopted a performancce-based appro oach to safety, can enable op perators
to optimize flight
f planning using modern methods and technologies
t to
o further minimmize their impacct on the enviroonment.
It is this synergy that can allow
a operatorss additional opp portunities to a
achieve efficienncies that may not be possiblle within
the confines s of a solely pre
escriptive regu
ulatory framewo ork. It is importtant for States to ensure, how wever, that reggardless
of the metho ods used, safetty remains the central theme e in any efforts to achieve ope erational efficie
encies or minim
mize the
impact on th he environmentt (Figure 2-1).
Efficiency
SAFETY
Environ
nment
Figure 2-1.
2 The rela
ationship betw
ween safety, effficiency and the environment
________
____________
____
Chapter 3
PRESCRIPTIVE AND PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE

WITH REGULATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 The development of any national regulation should take into account the overall capabilities of an Authority
and of the operators it oversees. In assessing such capabilities, a State will consider many operational factors including
but not limited to:
a) available infrastructure;
b) capabilities of the air traffic management (ATM) system;
c) availability and quality of aerodrome infrastructure and condition reporting;
d) availability and quality of meteorological reporting and forecasting;
e) the use of available advanced technologies and data analysis capabilities; and
f) operational control, flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch capabilities of individual
operators.
3.1.2 Additionally, the safety oversight capabilities of an Authority coupled with the overall operational and SRM
capabilities of individual operators can help determine the means of oversight necessary to ensure operator compliance
with baseline regulations. In some cases, an Authority may rely solely on strict operator compliance with conventional
and well-defined prescriptive requirements (prescriptive compliance) to maintain safe operations. In other cases,
capable authorities can work together with capable operators to introduce variations from prescriptive regulations (as
described in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 or 4.3.6.6). Such variations assume that compliance with a regulation based on an
operator’s safety performance will, at a minimum, be equivalent to prescriptive compliance with the same regulation.
3.1.3 This approach to regulatory compliance is based on a belief within the aviation community that existing
prescriptive and compliance-based approaches to safety should be complemented by a performance-based approach.
This belief arises from the notion that prescriptive rules may not have the fidelity or flexibility to address every potential
nuance in the operations overseen by an Authority. As such, a safety data driven and risk-based approach may be more
appropriate as well as provide the added benefit of continuous improvement in the level of safety performance achieved
by an operator.
3.1.4 In any case, the amended Annex 6, Part I, provisions establish, inter alia, that CAAs define regulations
containing criteria and operators establish the means, approved by the State, for the purposes of ensuring:
a) sufficient alternate aerodromes are designated, when required;
b) operations into isolated aerodromes are planned such that a safe landing can be made at the
destination or en-route alternate aerodrome at the estimated time of aerodrome use;
3-1
c) flights are conducted in accordance with the flight rules and operating minima appropriate for the
meteorological conditions anticipated at the estimated time of aerodrome use;
d) flights are planned such that an adequate margin of safety is observed in determining whether or not
an approach and landing can be carried out at each alternate aerodrome;
e) flights are planned and, when applicable, re-planned in flight to ensure that the aeroplane carries
sufficient fuel, including final reserve fuel, to complete the planned flight safely;
f) sufficient fuel is carried to allow for deviations from the planned operation and that the pre-flight
calculation of usable fuel required includes: taxi fuel, trip fuel, contingency fuel, final reserve fuel, and
when required, alternate fuel, additional fuel, and discretionary fuel; and
g) in-flight fuel checks are performed and fuel is managed in flight so as to ensure a flight can proceed,
with the planned final reserve fuel on board, to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made.
3.2 NATIONAL ALTERNATE AERODROME SELECTION

AND FUEL PLANNING REGULATIONS
3.2.1 Many commercial aviation regulations, whether originally rooted in Annex 6, Part I, or developed
independently by a State’s CAA, ultimately evolved to reflect specific operational experiences and regional concerns.
This evolution was inevitable as States and operators sought to find the appropriate balance between the ability to
sustain services and the safety risks generated as a result of those services. One result of this evolutionary process was
the realization that regulations formulated for use in one area of the world might not be transferrable to other areas of the
world that have varying levels of resources, operator experience, infrastructure and technology.
3.2.2 This disparity in operational capability or resources may in turn have led to the further evolution of
domestic national regulations apart from those required under the jurisdiction of a foreign authority or over the high seas.
This may have occurred absent concise guidance to deal with such disparities and illustrates one of the difficulties of
developing globally harmonized and implementable alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning Standards and
Recommended Practices.
3.2.3 The primary purpose of Annex 6, Part I, remains, however, to contribute to the safety, efficiency and
regularity of international air transportation by providing clear and concise criteria for the development of safe national
regulations. It accomplishes these aims by encouraging ICAO’s Member States to facilitate the passage over their
territories of commercial aeroplanes belonging to other countries that operate in conformity with ICAO’s Standards and
Recommended Practices. This philosophy also provides some assurance that all operators, including those that do not
fall under the immediate jurisdiction of a local authority, are conforming to globally accepted safety standards.
3.2.4 The alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning SARPs of Annex 6, Part I, no longer preclude the
development of national regulations which, due to their performance-based nature, may be more suitable in a particular
operating environment than their prescriptive counterparts. In such cases, operators in cooperation with CAAs can
develop performance-based policies or programmes that take full advantage of available operational and systemic
capabilities. It is important to note, however, that in all phases of aeroplane operations, minimum statutory standards
remain necessary as they make commercial aviation viable without prejudicing safety.
Chapter 3. Prescriptive and Performance-Based Compliance with Regulation 3-3
3.3 FACTORS THAT DRIVE DIFFERENCES IN ALTERNATE AERODROME

AND FUEL PLANNING REGULATIONS
National regulations are developed and implemented by individual States in order to ensure aviation activities conducted
within their area of jurisdiction maintain acceptable levels of safety performance. The remaining sections of this chapter
provide a brief synopsis of the operational challenges and related hazards faced by States and operators in many parts
of the world. Examples are also provided when necessary to illustrate how prescriptive and performance-based
compliance with regulations can provide systemic defenses with the potential to lessen the severity of hazards or
mitigate potential safety risks.
3.4 THE ROLE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
3.4.1 Many States enjoy sophisticated, multi-layered defenses imbedded in their infrastructure that mitigate
many of the safety risks associated with alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning. Other States, however, lack
the resources for infrastructure development or do not possess the technical ability to implement advanced systems or
techniques. Such disparities in infrastructure and associated capabilities must be routinely considered by States that
seek to effectively mitigate the safety risks resulting from flight operations through the enforcement of prescriptive and/or
performance-based compliance with regulations.
3.4.2 For example, one of the goals of any regulation related to the nomination of an alternate aerodrome would
be to assure, to the extent reasonably practicable, that a suitable runway will be available to an aeroplane when needed.
In compliance-based regulatory environments such an assurance is typically predicated on an operator’s compliance
with well-defined, prescriptive and conservative regulations. Such regulations typically define the specific conditions that
require the nomination of one or more alternates. Such regulations, by definition, do not lend themselves to
interpretation nor do they typically take into account differences in flight planning methods, operational capabilities,
available infrastructure, or the operational requirements of aeroplanes (e.g. Class “F” aeroplanes) that approach the
limits of available infrastructure.
3.4.3 In performance-based regulatory environments, performance-based compliance with regulations or

“variations” can be permitted by the State’s CAA based on the application of SRM methods. The effectiveness of such
methods, however, is largely contingent on an individual operator’s ability to define the operational processes,
procedures, systemic defenses and risk controls necessary to maintain acceptable levels of safety performance. Any
permissible variations from prescriptive regulations therefore are then predicated on an operator’s ability to demonstrate
(to the State) that the aeroplanes it operates, and the internal systems, processes, procedures and controls it has in
place, can effectively mitigate the resultant safety risks (including those associated with implementing new processes).
3.4.4 Continuing with the example, an operator, due to the limitations of infrastructure associated with a
proposed route, may wish to operate into an aerodrome with a single suitable runway without nominating a destination
alternate aerodrome as prescribed in an applicable regulation. In order to use a performance-based approach and apply
a variation to the regulation that prescribes alternate aerodrome selection, the operator applies SRM methods to
determine the level of safety performance associated with the proposed operations. The safety risk assessment may or
may not indicate that safety risk controls and/or mitigation measures are necessary to maintain a level of safety
performance that is equivalent to prescriptive compliance. If required, however, such controls and measures would take
into account any new hazards resulting from the application of risk mitigation and could also address, as applicable:
a) variations in fuel policy to account for unforeseen occurrences;
b) flight planning policies that use decision point planning to a destination;
c) aerodrome and runway condition monitoring;

d) variations in exposure time to potential runway closures that affect the flight;
e) meteorological conditions monitoring including the potential for phenomena other than ceiling and
visibility to affect the successful completion of the flight (e.g. thunderstorms, dust storms, wind);
f) multiple approach and landing options and adjustments to landing minima to ensure, to the greatest
extent practicable, that an approach and landing can be accomplished at the destination or alternate
aerodrome, as applicable;
g) the designation of emergency aerodromes not suitable for designation as alternates during flight
planning or for use in normal operations but available in the event of an emergency; and
h) flight crew procedures that specifically address limited landing option scenarios.
3.5 CAPABILITY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (ATM) SYSTEM

AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE
The capabilities of the ATM system should play a role in the development or implementation of any national regulation.
Assessing the capabilities of the ATM systems encountered in operations and analysing inherent hazards is also an
important step in assessing safety risks, as less advanced ATM systems in particular have the added potential to
invalidate assumptions made by operators during flight planning. Conversely, advanced navigation, surveillance and
ATM systems can provide systemic defenses and are typically characterized by their abilities to accomplish one or more
of the following:
a) optimize the use of available airspace and aerodrome capacity;
b) monitor flight progress and control flights safely and efficiently;
c) improve the navigation of aeroplanes by providing direct, optimum or preferred aeroplane routing;
d) safely and efficiently separate aeroplanes, reduce delays and reduce fuel consumption;
e) access advanced communication systems; and
f) access technology that can reliably fix an aeroplane’s position en route and display real-time
meteorological conditions.
3.6 AERODROME INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONDITION REPORTING

(QUALITY OF NOTAM INFORMATION)
The ready access to timely and accurate aerodrome condition information is essential to operations and provides a
systemic defense that protects against the safety risks associated with operations to any aerodrome. States and
operators with ready access to such information are characterized by the ability to reliably provide or obtain information
that, to the extent possible, is indicative of the condition of required aerodromes, landing surfaces and associated
services or facilities. Internal operator processes are also required to continually update such information, assess its
validity and feed other related operational and SRM processes. As such, assessing the availability and reliability of
NOTAM information is another important step during the safety risk assessment activities associated with the
development of national regulations.
3.7 QUALITY OF METEOROLOGICAL REPORTING AND FORECASTING
3.7.1 Meteorological conditions support services, including the capability to provide reliable and accurate
meteorological reports and forecasts, vary from State to State. Operations in areas of the world with sophisticated
meteorological conditions support services enjoy reliable, high-quality meteorological reporting while operations in
regions of the world with poor meteorological reporting and observational network infrastructure may have to rely on less
sophisticated information and/or routinely plan for worst-case meteorological scenarios.
3.7.2 Obtaining accurate meteorological information as well the ability to monitor en-route meteorological
conditions, and destination meteorological and aerodrome conditions, is essential in order for pilots and operational
control personnel to dynamically re-evaluate, reanalyse and revalidate pre-flight planning assumptions. This capability
augments what is typically available to the PIC in less robust systems and closes gaps in coverage where such
information may not be readily attainable by the flight crew en route.
3.8 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND DATA ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES
3.8.1 Civil aviation authorities and operators with access to advanced technologies and sophisticated data
analysis tools are best positioned to implement or apply performance-based methods of regulatory compliance.
Technological advances, by design, mitigate many of the safety risks inherent in human systems. In many parts of the
world and for many operators, such defenses are built into the system to protect against fluctuations in human
performance or decisions. Conversely, it is important to note that the absence of such systemic defenses can expose a
flight to additional safety risks and may require greater reliance on safety risk controls, mitigation measures or very well
defined prescriptive criteria.
3.8.2 CAAs typically consider certain technologies and capabilities during system design and SRM activities
associated with the implementation of prescriptive or performance-based methods of regulatory compliance. Access to
the following technologies and capabilities are characteristic of advanced operators and operating environments:
a) Technological advances in aeroplane capability and reliability. Advanced aeroplanes with on-
board flight management systems, advanced navigation capabilities and reliable propulsion systems
that increase the fidelity of flight planning systems, improve operational flexibility and support
advanced methods of data collection and analysis.
b) Technological advances in aerodrome approach systems, capability and reliability. The

proliferation of CAT II, CAT III, RNAV/RNP AR, GNSS, GBAS, SBAS and other approach systems that
increase the likelihood of a flight terminating in a successful approach and landing.
c) Advances in in-flight planning systems and technology. Automated flight planning systems that
use operator-specific historical and real-time data to optimize routes and add accuracy and efficiency
to flight planning.
d) Advanced systems for the collection of operational/safety data and data analysis tools. Routine
and extensive data collection, beyond accident and incident data, is an essential part of maximizing
operational efficiency but is especially important to support safety management activities and
performance-based programmes. As a consequence of the need to maintain a steady volume of data,
expanded collection systems are required. In such systems, safety data from low-severity events, for
example, become available through mandatory and voluntary reporting programmes. In terms of
safety data acquisition, these newer systems are proactive, since the triggering events required for
launching the safety data collection process are of significantly lesser consequence than those that
trigger the accident and serious incident safety data capture process.
3.9 OPERATIONAL CONTROL, FLIGHT FOLLOWING, FLIGHT MONITORING

AND FLIGHT WATCH CAPABILITIES
3.9.1 Advances in the operational control of flights improve operational reliability and flight monitoring, and
provide real-time flight support. Such operational control systems ensure the continuous and independent surveillance of
flights while en route and lessen the likelihood that unforeseen events could invalidate assumptions made during
alternate aerodrome planning and fuel planning. They may also provide for independent en-route re-analysis capability
for the purposes of continually validating or modifying flight planning assumptions.
3.9.2 Many operators also have access to technologies that can reliably fix an aeroplane’s position en route.
Such technologies, coupled with rapid and reliable communication systems, provide significant systemic defenses
against the hazards encountered by aeroplanes in operations. Such operators often have the capability to communicate
rapidly with emergency services, air traffic control (ATC) centres, aerodrome authorities and other entities that could
facilitate a successful conclusion to a planned operation that has encountered unforeseen hazards.
3.9.3 Operational control and flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch capabilities vary widely, and many
CAAs and operators are not positioned to make the significant investments necessary to maintain advanced systems.
Authorities and operators alike should assess their capabilities in the context of the most advanced systems in use
worldwide. Such systems are described in detail in Chapter 4 but are typically characterized by the ability to continuously
monitor relevant operational information, fix an aeroplane’s position and, when necessary, contact flights while en route.
3.10 SUMMARY
3.10.1 Purely conventional and compliance-based regulatory environments are typically quite rigid and require
prescriptive safety regulations to be used as administrative controls. This type of regulatory framework is supported by
inspections and audits to assure regulatory compliance. Alternatively, the aim of performance-based approaches to
safety is to introduce supplementary regulator and operator processes that will result in equally effective control of safety
risks.
3.10.2 Regulatory environments that support a performance-based approach to safety allow for the introduction of
performance-based elements within a compliance-based framework. This in turn allows for more flexible, risk-based and
dynamic operator performance with respect to the underlying and baseline prescriptive regulations. This type of
regulatory framework relies on State as well as operator processes for safety performance monitoring and measurement.
It also allows individual operators to select the safety monitoring indicators, relevant alert levels and targets that are
appropriate for their operation, performance history and expectations.
3.10.3 In short, prescriptive and performance-based national regulations are formulated to produce equivalent
outcomes. They differ, however, in the means used to achieve desired outcomes or objectives. Prescriptive regulations
or prescriptive compliance with regulations rely heavily on stipulating the means to achieve an outcome or the “how” and
“what” must be achieved. To achieve this aim, such approaches tend to focus on prescriptive criteria, processes,
techniques or procedures in order to ensure an acceptable outcome.
3.10.4 Performance-based regulation or performance-based compliance with existing regulation, on the other
hand, is focused primarily on the outcome or “what” must be achieved. This approach relies heavily on measurable
outcomes rather than prescriptive criteria or processes. Performance-based regulation, therefore, is inherently flexible
allowing operators with demonstrable capabilities to choose the most efficient means of achieving an objective.
3.10.5 Ultimately, the oversight capabilities of the Authority coupled with the operational capabilities of individual
operators determine the methods of compliance necessary to support safe flight operations. Prescriptive compliance
affords operators that lack sophisticated technologies or systems the structure and direction necessary to sustain
operations in a manner consistent with the prescriptive requirements of the Authority. Performance-based compliance
achieves the same objective for operators with access to sophisticated systems or technologies, albeit with added and
inherent flexibility but retaining an equivalent level of safety.
Note 1.— Appendix 1 to this chapter contains examples of how national regulations have evolved within
the context of regional concerns, available infrastructure and the capabilities of CAAs and the operators they oversee.
Note 2.— Appendix 2 contains an example of a United States Operations Specification (OpSpec) that
illustrates how the capabilities of the operator and access to extensive infrastructure, reliable advanced meteorological
reporting technologies and modern operational control methods can be leveraged using performance-based compliance
with existing prescriptive regulations.
— — — — — — — —
Appendix 1 to Chapter 3
NATIONAL ALTERNATE AERODROME SELECTION AND FUEL

PLANNING REGULATION MODELS
1. THE EUROPEAN MODEL
Although Europe’s operating environment shares many similarities with other regions of the world, there are some clear
distinctions. The main driving factors for airline operations in Europe are:
• Meteorological conditions. Europe’s operating environment is dominated by Atlantic frontal systems,

requiring procedures and flow rates to be based on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedures with little
reliance on Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions for capacity planning. Navigation infrastructure is also
advanced, with the widespread use of Category III capability. In fact, for many large operators the
proportion of sectors operated to Category III aerodromes exceeds 90 per cent.
• High population density. Space is at a premium in Europe making development of new runways
infrequent and new aerodrome development practically unknown. High population density also
imposes restrictions on routing which, in turn, causes congestion at many main hubs.
• Air Traffic System fragmentation. Europe has approximately 40 Air Navigation Service Providers
(ANSPs), which makes collaborative decision making (CDM) difficult. A Central Flow Management
Unit run by EUROCONTROL also manages flows with a view towards avoiding sector overloads,
which may not represent the optimal solution for either provider or user.
Information flow between operators and ATC Centres is also relatively restricted compared to the United States, thus
limiting the use of proactive flight dispatch departments. Consequently in-flight fuel and diversion decisions are almost
entirely the responsibility of the PIC causing operators to be more reactive rather than proactive or predictive in coping
with traffic flow disruption.
2. STATIC AND PRESCRIPTIVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In Europe, prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations follow Annex 6, Part I, SARPs
closely, and national differences were largely eliminated by the adoption of JAR-OPS in 1994, although differences of
interpretation continue. For example, under EU policy, two prescriptive methods for contingency fuel are generally
accepted:
• Five per cent of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, five per cent of the trip fuel
from the point of re-planning to the destination; or
• Not less than three per cent of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, three per
cent of the trip fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an En Route Alternate (ERA)
aerodrome is available for the second part of the trip.
Alternate aerodrome requirements are also closely aligned with Annex 6, Part I, SARPs with few minor differences.
3-A1-1
3-A1-2 Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual
3. ALLOWANCES FOR STATISTICALLY DRIVEN CONTINGENCY FUEL PLANNING
Unlike the United States, where numerous operational variations from national alternate aerodrome and fuel regulations
are possible, European Operations (EU-OPS) regulations recognize variations from prescriptive regulations related to
the carriage of contingency fuel only. Such regulations currently contain two performance-based variations from
prescriptive contingency fuel regulations. The variations allow for contingency fuel to be:
• an amount of fuel sufficient for 20 minutes flying time based upon the planned trip fuel consumption
provided that the operator has established a fuel consumption monitoring programme for individual
aeroplanes and uses valid data determined by means of such a programme for fuel calculation; or
• an amount of fuel based on a statistical method which ensures an appropriate statistical coverage of
the deviation from the planned to the actual trip fuel. This method is used to monitor the fuel
consumption on each city-pair/aeroplane combination and the operator uses these data for a statistical
analysis to calculate contingency fuel for that city-pair/aeroplane combination.
The first permissible variation for contingency fuel planning is not widely used. The second variation has been adopted
by a number of operators with the resources to gather and interpret the requisite data. Such Statistical Contingency Fuel
(SCF) programmes recognize that routes differ in their variability and that by allocating more fuel to those routes with
higher variability and reducing fuel for those less variable, both fuel uplift and disruption can be reduced.
Actual SCF coverage values are chosen by the operator according to its commercial requirements and can differ
according to the specific operational characteristics of the destination aerodrome (proximity of alternates, transport links,
etc.). One EU-OPS authority also requires that an SCF planning programme achieve approximately the same coverage
(i.e. the proportion of flights that burn all their contingency fuel) that fixed contingency fuel planning provides. Finally,
SCF coverage values used by operators typically range between 90 and 99 per cent of the maximum recorded
contingency fuel used.
It is important to note that the use of SCF alone does not attempt to achieve a target level of safety performance but
merely replaces fixed contingency fuel planning with a more scientific method. The inherent flexibility of the system and
the ability to change coverage figures instantly also means that coverage percentages can be altered if evidence from
the operator’s SRM processes suggests it is necessary. As data requirements for SCF planning are high and not
instantly achievable for new routes, operators are required to revert to conventional contingency fuel planning until
sufficient data are acquired.
4. THE UNITED STATES MODEL
Current alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations in the United States evolved within one of the most
highly developed and complex operating environments in the world. This environment is characterized by numerous
systemic defenses that guard against foreseeable fuel over-burn scenarios. Operations in the United States are further
characterized by:
• Extensive and mature infrastructure. Commercial operators in the United States enjoy access to an
extensive network of suitable aerodromes, accurate meteorological reporting systems and reliable
aerodrome condition monitoring programmes.
• Shared systems of operational control. Most commercial operators in the United States operate
under shared systems of operational control whereby a flight operations officer (FOO) or designated
member of management shares operational control authority with the PIC. Such shared systems
ensure the continuous and independent surveillance of flights while en route and lessen the likelihood
that unforeseen events could invalidate assumptions made during alternate aerodrome and fuel
planning.
Appendix 1 to Chapter 3 3-A1-3
• Enhanced flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch. Operators in the United States have
access to sophisticated technologies that can reliably fix an aeroplane’s position en route. This
facilitates the active and continuous tracking of flights by operational control personnel, which in turn
ensures that flights follow their prescribed routing without unplanned deviation or delay.
• Air Traffic Management. Communication, navigation and surveillance systems used by ATM in the
United States also improve flight safety and optimize the use of available airspace and aerodrome
capacity. These systems improve the navigation of aeroplanes and increase ATC’s ability to monitor
and control flights safely and efficiently. They also have the potential to reduce delays by providing
more direct and efficient aeroplane routing. Additionally, airspace and aerodrome capacity
optimization reduces flight, holding and taxi times, distance flown and associated fuel consumption by
employing direct or preferential routes.
• Advanced communication systems. Another unique element of the United States operating
environment is the widespread use of advanced communication systems to enhance communications
between and among aircraft, air traffic controllers, and flight operations officers/flight followers. These
and other methodologies support a system of rapid and reliable communications between aeroplanes
and those entities with the real-time reanalysis capabilities necessary to continually validate flight
planning assumptions.

FORM PRESCRIPTIVE FOUNDATION
In the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14 governs the determination of alternate aerodrome
selection, fuel supply and in-flight fuel management. Numerous regulations contained in CFR 14 form the prescriptive
foundation or basis for alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning methods in use by United States air carriers. The
origins of many of these regulations can be traced back to 1936 and part 61 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), rather than routinely modifying CFR 14 regulations, grants capable operators
deviations or exemptions from prescriptive elements of alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations. In
considering requests for deviations or exemptions, the FAA reviews the history of a regulation. This is done to determine
if the reasons why the regulation was first established are still valid, and if literal continued compliance with the
regulation is required in order to ensure that the level of safety currently provided would not be decreased by the
proposed deviation or exemption.
This is a fundamental tenet of the performance-based method of regulatory compliance and the first step in determining
whether or not an operator can “vary” from a prescriptive regulation. Such deviations or exemptions are subject to
performance criteria found in contractual arrangements known as Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) or letters of
exemption. As such, the means to maintain regulatory compliance and/or guidance material related to the application of
an individual regulation may be found in documents apart from the core regulation(s).
A United States air carrier’s Air Operator Certificate includes the OpSpecs applicable to the operator. The OpSpecs
contain the exemptions from, authorizations to deviate from, or the conditions necessary to comply with, a specific
regulation. Such deviations, exemptions, or means of compliance augment and, in some cases, supersede the related
regulations. It is important to note that uninterrupted OpSpec approval is based upon ongoing conformance with the
additional specifications stipulated in conjunction with an operator’s original approval.
6. VARIATIONS FROM PRESCRIPTIVE REGULATIONS ARE PERMITTED

BY DEVIATION OR EXEMPTION
The contractual OpSpecs approval and exemption petition process is the current means by which the FAA is able to
grant variations from the prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations found in CFR 14. The
FAA grants such variations by OpSpec approval or exemption subject to the presence of specific systemic defenses or
risk controls. Examples of OpSpec approvals or regulatory exemptions include but are not limited to:
• (B043), an OpSpec for “Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations”, which permits a deviation
from the fuel carriage requirements of CFR 14 Part 121.645 if the conditions within the specification
are met;
• (B044) an OpSpec for “Planned Redispatch or Rerelease En Route”, which stipulates the conditions
necessary for an operator to comply with CFR 14 Part 121.631(f);
• (B0343) an OpSpec for “Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations”, which is a
nonstandard authorization for certain fuel reserves for flag and supplemental operations;
• (C355) an exemption which authorizes a reduction in the minimum ceiling and visibility, prescribed by
FAR 121.619, for the destination airport before an alternate must be designated;
• (C055) an OpSpec for the determination and application of alternate airport planning minima;
• (3585) an exemption which allows airlines to dispatch or release a flight under FAR 121.613 when
meteorological reports or forecasts indicate meteorological conditions are forecasted to be below
authorized weather minimums at the estimated time of arrival.
Each of the aforementioned examples, to varying extents, specifies the additional means required to mitigate or control
the risks associated with the application of the deviation or exemption. Additionally, at least two of the examples contain
the type of data that must be collected and provided to the FAA in order for the deviation or exemption to remain in force.
Such flexibility is only afforded to operators with the demonstrable ability to manage safety risks associated with the
approval as is possible within a regulatory framework with a performance-based oversight component.
Note.— OpSpec 355 contains many of the attributes of a contemporary performance-based variation from
prescriptive regulation and is included for illustrative purposes in Appendix 2 to Chapter 3.
7. THE REALITIES OF OTHER NATIONAL MODELS
The resources available to States and the oversight capabilities of CAAs vary widely in the world of international
commercial aviation. Additionally, many States have yet to implement the safety assurance and oversight components
necessary to complement an operator’s SRM processes. Even more States continue to rely solely on compliance-based
methods of regulatory oversight with few resources to introduce complementary performance-based components.
Although recent developments in SRM continue to question the pervasive notion that safety can be guaranteed as long
as rules are followed, the importance of regulatory compliance cannot be denied. And while compliance-based
regulatory approaches have their limitations as mainstays of safety in an operational system as open and dynamic as
aviation, compliance with safety regulations is fundamental to the development of sound safety practices.
One emphasis of this manual, however, is simply to reinforce the concept that the historical approach to the
management of safety based solely upon regulatory compliance should be complemented where possible by a
performance-based component that will assess the actual performance of activities critical to safety against existing
organizational controls.
8. THE AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGIES
The operating environments within the United States and Europe are characterized by the availability of extensive
infrastructure and the widespread use of advanced technologies in aeroplanes, ATM, meteorological reporting,
communication and operational control systems. Access to such advanced systemic defenses is simply not possible in
many other parts of the world. Such limitations should be considered by CAAs when developing alternate aerodrome
selection and fuel planning policies in order to effectively mitigate the safety risks associated with a lack of advanced
systemic defenses.
Civil aviation authorities in the United States and Europe also draft national regulations with the knowledge that
operators under their jurisdiction already have access to advanced technology, highly developed infrastructure and high
levels of operational experience. As a result, the criteria prescribed by these regulations are typically addressed (by
operators) without undue cost given their current level of sophistication. This may not be the case in other parts of the
world.
States that lack highly developed infrastructure or access to advanced technologies must strive to achieve the
appropriate balance between their ability to sustain commercial aviation services and the safety risks generated as a
result of the production of those services. With this need for balance in mind, the following list details some of the factors
that a State should consider when determining the appropriateness of national regulations or adapting the regulations of
another State:
• Lack of available aerodromes. A lack of available aerodromes affects an operator’s ability to

nominate alternates within an economically sustainable distance to the destination. While there would
be few examples where an aeroplane could not conceivably carry sufficient fuel to reach an alternate
aerodrome, doing so may not be possible without the offload of revenue payload. Air transport is a
vital service in many parts of the world and in some cases the only means of transportation. Operators
may find it necessary to conduct operations where no alternate aerodrome is available provided the
State, and the operator, can demonstrate there is a reasonable certainty that an alternate will not be
required.
• Predominance of non-precision approaches. States outside Europe and North America frequently
contain aerodromes that use non-precision approaches for the primary approach. While non-precision
approaches may not significantly impact operations in some parts of the world, fuel planning should
take into account the higher minima associated with such approaches. Additionally, the fuel policy or
operational procedures should consider the lack of redundancy and the potential for an aid to fail. As
such, the prescribed minima should allow for the failure of a navigation aid and allow an approach to
be completed successfully using either a procedure that terminates in a visual segment or another
navigation aid.
• Routine use of circling or visual approaches. Due to the lack of navigation aids, or a lack of
redundancy, States may be required to prescribe alternate minima for a particular aerodrome that are
based on the conduct of a visual approach. Such an approach may be the culmination of an arrival
procedure for which there is no navigation aid guidance or the result of a requirement to conduct a
circling approach. While there is a general movement away from such approaches in States with
modern infrastructure, they remain a primary procedure in regions that do not enjoy such advanced
development. As such, they remain a viable method of maintaining air services as long as approach
minima and fuel policies consider the inherent limitations of such procedures.
• Concentration of populations. Some States, despite large land masses, have their populations
concentrated in small areas. As a result, distances between available aerodromes may be large and
the availability of en-route alternate aerodromes limited. Civil aviation authorities and operators should
consider en-route system failures in the development of national and operational policies. The lack of
available alternate aerodromes, however, may make the provision of additional flexibility an
operational necessity in order to sustain viable commercial air services.
• Remote and isolated aerodromes. States that have jurisdiction over aerodromes that are physically
removed from available alternate aerodromes may consider specifying additional fuel carriage
requirements for operations to these aerodromes. Remote and isolated aerodromes can be island
based or be located on continental land masses. Operators may elect to nominate a specific
aerodrome as isolated or remote if, by complying with the State requirements for such operations, less
fuel uplift would result without compromising the target level of safety performance for the planned
operation.
All States should prescribe, or where such prescription is not legislated, approve or accept the minimum alternate
aerodrome and fuel planning requirements for aeroplanes operating within their airspace. These regulations form one of
the core elements in ensuring the safety of flight operations. Many States may choose to adopt, either in entirety or in
part, the regulatory framework specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) or the EU-OPS. The use of these
regulatory frameworks and methods of regulatory compliance may prove, particularly in theatres where long distances to
limited infrastructure aerodromes exist, to be unreasonably restrictive in some operational environments.
The exact nature of the prescriptive requirements may vary from State to State but in all cases they should ensure that,
to the greatest extent possible, the lack of a suitable aerodrome or fuel exhaustion will not be a determining factor in an
aeroplane incident or accident. Balanced against this need for safety, States should not attempt to legislate in an
unreasonable or capricious manner in an attempt to mitigate human error or events that are statistically insignificant.
10. OPERATIONAL VARIATIONS THAT RECOGNIZE LIMITATIONS

OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGIES
States that do not enjoy the availability of extensive infrastructure and/or the widespread use of advanced technologies
may choose to implement operational (performance-based) variations from prescriptive regulations if operators have the
demonstrable ability to manage operational safety risks. In many cases, however, the technical and operational abilities
of individual operators may exceed those of the respective State. Where this is the case, operators should still be able to
demonstrate that proposed practices using existing or pending infrastructure developments maintain acceptable levels of
safety performance. This allows for the introduction of new technologies vital to the development of aviation in many
States.
Operators wishing to implement performance-based variations should be able to work with CAAs to implement new
systemic defenses or take full advantage of existing defenses if deemed appropriate and effective in mitigating the
safety risks of operations. Such defenses or safety risk controls may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Satellite-based navigation systems. The use of satellite-based navigation systems can be used as a
basis for prescribing lower operating minima provided the operator can demonstrate that operational
policies and procedures effectively manage safety risks associated with such operations.
• Lower traffic densities. The lower traffic densities associated with specific routes may result in less
altitude blockages, traffic holding or track diversions. A State, when setting or considering variations to
national fuel policy, should consider such operational realities. In conjunction with such variations,
operators should also be able to continually demonstrate that their route structure is such that the
consequences of hazards associated with the traffic densities along proposed routes do not produce
unmitigated safety risks.
• User preferred routes. The operation of flights along a User Preferred Route (UPR) may also result
in less traffic congestion, more efficient routing of aeroplanes and lower fuel burn. The State may take
this into account, when approving an operator’s fuel policy, if the operator can continually demonstrate
the operational ability to conduct such operations.
11. THE OPERATIONAL REALITIES OF LONG-HAUL AND ULTRA-LONG-HAUL OPERATIONS
Long-haul and ultra-long-haul operations are specialized operations undertaken by relatively few air carriers. Strict
adherence to prescriptive requirements, particularly regarding the provision of destination alternate aerodromes, may be
particularly problematic in these operations due to the inability of an aeroplane to physically carry the fuel required. This
is normally applicable to all long-range aeroplanes as well as short- to medium-range aeroplanes when operating to the
limits of their available range.
The mechanisms necessary for the safe conduct of such operations may be beyond the capabilities of some operators,
particularly if they have no previous and operationally specific experience. However performance-based variations from
prescriptive regulations may be appropriate where an operator is able to continually demonstrate a level of operational
sophistication and experience that ensures potential hazards have been properly considered and safety risks mitigated.
In some cases a planned long-haul operation will not be possible without such relief. In these cases, the State may
require a demonstration of operational capability to ensure acceptable levels of safety performance can be maintained
before relief from the prescriptive requirements of national alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations
can be granted.
Note.— Chapter 5 of this manual contains specific core criteria requirements that typify capable operators
as well as additional guidance related to the development and implementation of performance-based regulations for
alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning.
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLE OF A UNITED STATES OPSPEC THAT PROVIDES

CONDITIONAL RELIEF FROM IFR NO-ALTERNATE REQUIREMENTS
(PARAGRAPH C355, ALTERNATE AIRPORT IFR WEATHER
MINIMUMS: 14 CFR PART 121)
1. SUMMARIZING PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE WITH FAA OPSPEC C355
FAA OpSpec C355 is representative of an operational variation to existing prescriptive regulations, in the United States,
that contains many of the attributes of a performance-based methodology for the designation of alternate aerodromes. It
contains an exhaustive compilation of criteria requirements, mitigation measures, and safety risk controls that far exceed
the criteria of the prescriptive regulations it is formulated to address. It is provided here as a means to illustrate the
scope, breadth and potential of performance-based compliance methods.
2. FAR 121.619 FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE OPERATIONAL VARIATION

CONVENTIONAL PRESCRIPTIVE
While it is possible for a basic regulation to be performance-based, it is far more typical for a State’s Authority to grant
performance-based variations from established or existing prescriptive regulations. In the case of OpSpec C355,
FAR 121.619 forms the basis for the operational variation:
“FAR 121.619 Alternate airport for destination: IFR or over-the-top: Domestic operations.
(a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless he lists at least one alternate
airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release. When the weather conditions forecast for
the destination and first alternate airport are marginal at least one additional alternate must be
designated. However, no alternate airport is required if for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the
estimated time of arrival at the destination airport the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any
combination of them, indicate—
(1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation; and
(2) Visibility will be at least 3 miles.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the weather conditions at the alternate airport must
meet the requirements of FAR121.625.
(c) No person may dispatch a flight unless he lists each required alternate airport in the dispatch release.”
3-A2-1
3. OPSPEC C355 ALLOWS CAPABLE OPERATORS TO VARY FROM FAR 121.619
Contractual OpSpec approval and the exemption petition process used by the FAA allow operational variations from
prescriptive criteria based on continual conformance with the conditions outlined in the exemption. Such conditions
represent specific systemic defenses, mitigation measures and/or safety risk controls used to ensure a level of safety at
least as good as the prescriptive requirement:
“C355. Exemption to FAR 121.619 for Domestic Alternate Airport Requirements
a) The certificate holder is authorized to dispatch flights in accordance with Grant of exemption(s) listed
in Table l below, as may be amended, which grant(s) relief from 14 CFR Sections 121.619(a)(1) and
(2) for domestic operations. All operations under the exemption are subject to compliance with the
conditions and limitations set forth in the exemption and this operations specification.
b) In accordance with the provisions and limitations of the exemption(s) listed in Table 1 below, the
certificate holder is allowed to reduce the destination airport weather requirement of
Section 121.619(a)(1) and (2) for designating an alternate airport from the current CFR requirement of
at least 2 000-foot ceilings and at least 3 miles visibility to at least 1 000-foot ceilings and the visibility
listed in Table 1 below based on the applicable exemption and the limitations and provisions of this
operations specification.
Table 1 — Authorized Exemptions
Must maintain at least

CAT I or CAT II
Ceiling and Visibility Required Approach Capability
Grant of Exemption No. Per Exemption as Req’d
XXXX 1 000-ft ceiling and 2sm CAT II

(Distinct No. assigned visibility
to each operator)
XXXX 1 000-ft ceiling and 3sm CAT I

(Distinct No. assigned visibility
to each operator)
c) This authorization is applicable to only those destination airports within the 48 contiguous United
States.
d) This authorization may be used in operations to airports within the contiguous United States in
accordance with operations specification A012 if issued.
e) All operations under this authorization must be conducted while using a qualified dispatcher.
1) The certificate holder must provide a copy of pertinent parts of the exemption and documentation,
with respect to the conditions and limitations of this operations specification, acceptable to the
POI, to each dispatcher, and pilot-in-command who conducts operations under the exemption.
2) Each dispatcher must have a computer monitoring system or systems to display the location of
each flight and current significant weather that is capable of showing the following:
i) The aircraft’s present position updated at least once every three minutes.
ii) Overlays of weather radar returns updated at least once every five minutes.
iii) Specific routing of the airplane as assigned by ATC and actual filed flight plan routing.
iv) Other airborne airplane including those of other operators.
v) Planned and actual fuel at regular intervals along the route and the difference between
planned and actual fuel.
vi) Automatically alerts the dispatcher to a special weather update, changes in weather reports,
forecasts and/or other significant weather-related reports which can be expeditiously relayed
to the flight crews while conducting operations under this exemption.
3) Each dispatcher must have the capability to access the services of a qualified meteorologist
approved by the POI or the certificate holder must have an approved EWINS programme.
4) Each dispatcher must have the capability to expeditiously re-compute projected arrival fuel from a
“point aloft” to the intended destination in the event conditions, including those required to be
reported in subparagraph l. below, occur that negatively impact the flight.
5) Each dispatcher must have data available that will show airplane status, including the airplane
capability to conduct CAT I, CAT II or CAT III operations as applicable to the exemption being
used.
6) The dispatch release will contain a statement for each flight dispatched under this exemption such
as: “ALTN WEATHER EXEMPTION APPLIED. REFERENCE (APPROPRIATE DOCUMENT
SUCH AS FOM, GOM, etc.). The certificate holder may choose to use other wording, if desired,
but the meaning must be clear.
f) The reporting requirements of the flight crews listed in subparagraph l., Mandatory Pilot Reports,
below and the required dispatch flight planning and tracking systems in subparagraph e. above must
be used to determine the feasibility of dispatching the flight under this exemption and/or continuing the
flight after dispatch.
g) Approved Procedures. If the use of these systems, reports or the occurrence of other factors indicate
that the conditions under which the flight was originally dispatched have changed and may negatively
impact the flight, the dispatcher and flight crew must re-evaluate the continued operation of the flight
using approved procedures, and if necessary, agree on an alternate plan as soon as practicable after
the occurrence of any of the following:
1) En route holding or delaying vectors, airspeed changes, altitude changes, or re-routings.
2) Unplanned or sustained use of deicing and anti-icing systems or other factors directly relating to
fuel consumption that may have a negative effect on trip fuel requirements.
3) The deterioration of destination weather below a 1 000-foot ceiling and 2-mile visibility if using an
exemption that requires at least 3 statute miles visibility as listed in Table I above.
4) The deterioration of destination weather below a 1 000-foot ceiling and 1-mile visibility if using an
exemption that requires for at least 2 statute miles visibility as listed in Table l above.
h) If granted an exemption that allows for 1 000-foot ceiling and at least 2 statute miles visibility as listed
in the granted exemption and Table 1 above, the certificate holder shall maintain at least CAT II
approach authorization (operations specification C059) for those fleets to which this exemption applies
and the following:
1) At the time of dispatch the flight crew must be qualified and the airplane equipped with operational
avionics to conduct a CAT II approach.
2) The intended destination airport must have at least one operational CAT II or CAT III ILS
approach that is available for use if needed.
3) Pilots in command (PIC) with less than the requisite minimum hours specified in Section 121.652
shall not be utilized in operations under this exemption unless the operator also holds Exemption
5549, the PIC has been trained in accordance with the requirements of that exemption, and all of
the conditions specified by Exemption 5549 are met.
i) If granted an exemption that allows for 1 000-foot ceiling and at least 3 statute miles visibility as listed
in the granted exemption and Table 1 above, the certificate holder shall maintain at least CAT I
approach authorization (operations specification C052 and C074) for those fleets and flight crews to
which the exemption would apply as well as the following:
1) At the time of dispatch the airplane avionics equipment required to conduct CAT I ILS approach
must be installed and operational. At the time of dispatch the flight crew must be qualified to
conduct a CAT I approach to minima of at least 200 feet and RVR 2 000 or lower, if published.
2) The intended destination airport must have at least one operational CAT I ILS approach with
minima of at least 200 feet and RVR 2 000 that is available for use if needed.
3) PIC with less than the requisite minimum hours specified in Section 121.652 shall not be utilized
in operations under this exemption unless the operator also holds Exemption 5549, the PIC has
been trained in accordance with the requirements of that exemption, and all of the conditions
specified by Exemption 5549 are met.
j) The exemption(s) referenced in Table 1 above cannot be used if thunderstorms are forecast in either
the main body of a weather report or in the remarks section of the forecast between one hour before to
one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport.
k) In the event any of the monitoring or capability requirements become inoperative after dispatch, the
pilot-in-command and dispatcher will determine whether the degradation would preclude a safe
landing at the destination airport.
l) Mandatory; Pilot Reports. Pilots will notify Dispatch as soon as practicable in the event of any of the
following:
1) Lateral deviation from the planned route by greater than 100 NM.
2) Vertical deviation from the planned altitude by greater than 4 000 feet.
3) ETA will exceed planned by greater than 15 minutes.
4) Fuel consumption in excess of planned that may have a negative effect on trip fuel requirements.
5) Fuel system component failure or apparent malfunction that may have a negative effect on trip
fuel requirements.
6) The flight encounters weather significantly different than forecast, to include turbulence.
7) The flight is assigned en route or arrival holding.
8) Unplanned or sustained use of deicing or anti-icing systems.
m) The certificate holder shall maintain a system for trend-tracking of all diversions. For at least the first
24 months of operations under the exemption(s) referenced in Table 1 above, or for such longer
period of time as the POI deems necessary in order to thoroughly evaluate operational performance,
the certificate holder must provide the Administrator, by the 15th of each month, reports, formatted in
chronological order and by fleet type, that fully document each diversion from the previous calendar
month and include at least the following:
1) The total number of flights operated under domestic rules to destinations within the 48 contiguous
states by the certificate holder.
2) The total number of flights in subparagraph m.(1) above that divert to an alternate airport.
3) Total number of flights operated under the exemption(s) referenced in Table 1 above including
those flights conducted under the appropriate provisions and limitations of` operations
specification A012.
For each flight operated the following information must be included:
i) Dates
ii) Airport pairs
iii) Flight numbers
iv) Airplane M/M/S
v) Trended or graphical summary of flight planned fuel versus actual arrival fuel and the
contingency fuel carried
vi) Emergency declared and reason
vii) Any occurrence of a low fuel state which results in actions being taken by ATC and/or
dispatch in order to provide priority handling, even if no emergency is declared.
4) Diversions Under The Exemption(s). The flight numbers and the airport pairs where flights were
diverted to an alternate airport that are operated under the exemption(s) referenced in Table 1
above, and the following:
i) Date of each diversion.
ii) Airplane M/M/S.
iii) The reason for each diversion, such as but not limited to, weather conditions, mechanical
problem, fuel quantity, passenger problems, air traffic, flight crew, or any other reason.
iv) Fuel remaining at the diversion airfield.
v) Original weather forecast for original destination.
vi) Air traffic control priority and the reason for the assignment, if applicable.”
______________________
Chapter 4
UNDERSTANDING PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1.1 The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the Annex 6, Part I, SARPs 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 related to the
selection of alternate aerodromes, meteorological conditions required to operate in accordance with VFR and IFR, and
pre-flight fuel planning. The prescriptive criteria contained in these SARPs are representative of the most basic systemic
defenses of an aviation system in addition to others such as training and technology. Such criteria also provide the basis
for a sensible and well-defined regulatory framework for use in complex operating environments as well as form the
foundation for the development of sound SRM practices.
4.1.2 In a purely compliance-based regulatory environment, the State’s Authority prescribes the minimum
statutory requirements an operator must comply with when planning a flight. Such requirements are typically expressed
as regulations defining the operating conditions that necessitate the selection of alternate aerodromes and fuel
quantities to be carried. This prescriptive approach, reflected in the SARPs, is used by many Authorities as it contributes
significantly to ensuring the safe completion of flights. It also offers economic advantages to Authorities and operators
that may lack the sophisticated systems, advanced technologies or specialized knowledge necessary to support
performance-based compliance with regulation.
4.1.3 Prescriptive compliance with regulation does, however, still require some specialized knowledge as it
typically:
a) requires operators to identify the minimum statutory requirement acceptable to an Authority and to
represent the starting point for the operator’s flight preparation activities. It is important to note that
while a regulation may prescribe a minimum amount of contingency fuel, for example, it is up to the
operator’s flight crews and Flight Operations Officers (if applicable) to determine, for a particular flight,
if the prescribed regulatory minimum is sufficient to provide an adequate safety margin (e.g. through
the uplift of discretionary fuel by the PIC or use of SCF). This concept should be reflected in the
operator’s flight preparation policy, process and procedure to ensure the adaption of safety margins in
day-to-day operations;
b) requires operators to consider the operating conditions under which a flight will be conducted including
computed aeroplane mass, expected meteorological conditions and anticipated ATC restrictions and
delays; and
c) is contingent on the use of fuel consumption data provided by the aeroplane manufacturer.
4.1.4 This chapter explains the SARPs in Annex 6 that can be used as the basis to develop prescriptive national
regulations as well as to form the baseline for performance-based variations from such regulations as described in
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.6.6.
Note.— Although closely related, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management are addressed separately in
this manual.
4-1
4.2 HISTORY
4.2.1 Conventional prescriptive flight planning regulations and associated methods typically assume the
following principal hazards affecting the outcome of flights. While aeroplanes and aids to navigation have advanced over
time permitting the development of lower operating minima, the same underlying assumptions remain:
a) Need to land immediately after take-off. The development of take-off alternate aerodrome criteria
likely stemmed from operator experience with high-power piston engines, when take-off fires were
more common. It was recognized that take-offs were routinely performed in lower visibilities than were
permitted for landings and that a return to point of departure was not always possible. This resulted in
a requirement to provide for a “return alternate” within a specified flight time as a means of mitigating
the safety risks associated with the inability to return to the point of departure.
b) Meteorological conditions at destination. It was generally assumed that if visual meteorological

conditions (VMC) existed at the destination, a safe approach would always be possible and an
alternate aerodrome would not be required. Conversely, if VMC were not forecast for the destination,
not only would an alternate aerodrome be required, but the meteorological conditions at the alternate
would have to be much less likely to prevent a safe approach than at the destination. This led to the
development of “alternate minima”, which is more restrictive than normal operating minima. The
underlying assumption was that meteorological conditions were the major, if not the only, cause of
diversion to the alternate aerodrome, and the prescriptive regulation in and of itself, did not attempt to
mitigate other causal factors (e.g. ATC disruption).
c) In-flight contingency. The designation of contingency fuel was established to compensate for
unforeseen factors that could influence fuel burn to the destination aerodrome. Such factors included,
for example, deviations of an individual aeroplane from expected fuel consumption data, or deviations
from forecast meteorological conditions or planned routings and cruising altitudes/levels.
Contingency fuel has traditionally been computed as a percentage of trip fuel, a carry-over from a time
when both consumption data and forecast wind components were less accurate than they are today.
Contingency fuel requirements also typically specify a minimum cut-off value in terms of flight time,
recognizing that some contingencies occur once per flight (e.g. take-off and landing delays) and are
not proportional to flight time.
Amendment 36 to Annex 6, Part I, defines contingency fuel allowing the use of it, to compensate for
unforeseen factors, from the moment that an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off. Thus,
under some circumstances, it may be used prior to take-off. It is important to note that the definition of
trip fuel includes compensation for foreseen factors such as meteorological conditions, air traffic
services procedures, restrictions, anticipated delays and NOTAMS.
4.2.2 It should be noted that hazards, other than the aforementioned deviations accounted for in contingency
fuel calculations, may not typically be considered by an operator that is strictly complying with prescriptive alternate
aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations. Such hazards that typically cannot be planned for, anticipated or are
beyond the control of the operator include, but are not limited to:
a) human error or distractions;
b) loss of situational awareness;
c) workload spikes;
d) inaccurate prognostics (meteorological);

Chapter 4. Understanding Prescriptive Compliance 4-3
e) equipment failures;
f) database failures;
g) ATM failures;
h) ATM saturation and tactical measures; and
i) incidents/accidents resulting in infrastructure closures.
4.2.3 It is also important to note that such hazards are unlikely to be mitigated by prescriptive compliance with
regulation, the designation of an alternate aerodrome or the carriage of extra fuel. Although these hazards cannot
typically be planned for or anticipated, their consequences can and should be effectively identified and, where necessary,
mitigated by other means including the application of SRM practices, advanced technologies, operator policies and
procedures, operational control methods, increased awareness and training.
4.3 OBJECTIVES OF PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE
4.3.1 In a compliance-based regulatory environment, the State’s Authority prescribes the statutory requirements
for the operator to use in flight planning and re-planning. Such requirements are static in that they typically do not
contain any performance-based elements or statistical analysis to aid in the precise determination of alternate
aerodrome requirements, alternate minima or fuel reserves. They should, however, set clear, understandable and
concise requirements for pre-flight planning and in-flight fuel usage, as well as specifically define the actions necessary
to protect final reserve fuel.
4.3.2 Authorities that rely on prescriptive operator compliance with regulations also rely on reactive investigative
processes to determine the root causes of incidents or accidents. As an example, typical reactive processes may require
unplanned diversions, low fuel states and/or instances of landing below final reserve fuel to be reported to and/or
investigated by the applicable Authority. The results of such investigative processes are then analysed to determine if
changes to prescriptive regulations are warranted in order to maintain safe flight operations.
4.4 PRESCRIPTIVE ALTERNATE AERODROME SELECTION AND FUEL PLANNING PROVISIONS

OF ANNEX 6, PART I
4.4.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4, 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 contain SARPs related to alternate aerodrome selection and fuel
planning. Like many prescriptive national regulations these Standards were developed to provide for baseline operator
performance in the following areas:
a) Take-off alternate aerodromes. Selection and specification on the operational flight plan (OFP) and
prescribed distance from aerodrome of departure;
b) En-route alternate aerodromes. Selection and specification on the operational and ATS flight plan;
c) Destination alternate aerodromes. Selection and specification on the operational and ATS flight
plans;
d) Isolated aerodromes. Planning requirements and special operational considerations for operations to
isolated aerodromes;
e) Meteorological conditions. Prescribed meteorological conditions for VFR flight and to commence or
continue an IFR flight including operating minima for take-off, destination and alternate aerodromes;
f) Alternate aerodrome planning minima. Criteria for establishing incremental values to be added to
aerodrome operating minima and defining the estimated time of use of an alternate aerodrome;
g) Pre-flight fuel planning. Criteria to address deviations from the planned operation, basic fuel
planning, the pre-flight calculation of required usable fuel, EDTO critical fuel and final reserve fuel.
4.4.2 Each Annex 6, Part I, SARP in the aforementioned areas will be explained and expanded in the ensuing
sections of this chapter. It is important to note, however, that the performance-based variations from these Standards
described in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.6.6 will be explained in Chapter 5.
4.5 TAKE-OFF ALTERNATE AERODROMES — SELECTION AND SPECIFICATION
4.5.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.1 states:
4.3.4.1 Take-off alternate aerodrome
4.3.4.1.1 A take-off alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational flight
plan if either the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome of departure are below the operator’s
established aerodrome landing minima for that operation or if it would not be possible to return to the
aerodrome of departure for other reasons.
4.5.2 Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to select and specify a take-off alternate aerodrome
in the OFP under the conditions specified. It is intended to address an emergency during or immediately after take-off
that requires the flight crew to land the aeroplane as soon as possible. An engine failure or fire is an example of such an
emergency, as the likelihood of this occurrence during take-off is higher than during other phases of flight. An additional
consideration is that the approach and landing capability of the aeroplane may be degraded after an engine failure or fire.
The result is likelihood that the minima that permitted the take-off from the departure aerodrome will be lower than the
applicable minima for landing, if, for example, the departure aerodrome, either:
a) is not equipped with a precision approach; or
b) has only a Category I precision approach; or
c) has a Category ll or lll precision approach but the aeroplane is not certificated to land in Category ll or
lll conditions with one engine inoperative; or
d) wind or terrain conditions do not allow the aeroplane to use a favourable approach.
4.5.3 In this case, the “operator’s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation” typically refers to
the minimum ceiling and/or runway visual range for landing with an engine inoperative as established by the operator.
As such landings are assumed to occur within a relatively short period after take-off, it is typically unnecessary to apply
additional margins to operating minima in order to allow for deterioration in meteorological conditions or uncertainty in
the meteorological forecast.
Note.— Conformance with this Standard would also require the operator to establish operating minima in
accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.3.
4.6 TAKE-OFF ALTERNATE AERODROMES —

DISTANCE FROM AERODROME OF DEPARTURE
4.6.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.2, states:
4.3.4.1.2 The take-off alternate aerodrome shall be located within the following flight time from
the aerodrome of departure:
a) for aeroplanes with two engines, one hour of flight time at a one engine-inoperative cruising
speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual, calculated in ISA [International
Standard Atmosphere] and still-air conditions using the actual take-off mass; or
b) for aeroplanes with three or more engines, two hours of flight time at an all engines operating
cruising speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual, calculated in ISA and still-air
conditions using the actual take-off mass; or
c) for aeroplanes engaged in extended diversion time operations (EDTO) where an alternate
aerodrome meeting the distance criteria of a) or b) is not available, the first available
alternate aerodrome located within the distance of the operator’s approved maximum
diversion time considering the actual take-off mass.
4.6.2 This Standard defines the location of the take-off alternate aerodrome (specified in accordance with
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.1) in relation to the aerodrome of departure. This location is expressed in terms of the time
required to reach the alternate under the conditions specified. Allowances are made for the specific range of aeroplanes
with inoperative engines or engaged in EDTO. Item c), for example, recognizes that aeroplanes engaged in EDTO are
subject to stringent reliability requirements and that diversion times to an alternate aerodrome associated with such
operations are inherently longer. To be engaged in extended diversion time operations means that the aeroplane and
operator have been approved for EDTO, and the aeroplane has been dispatched in accordance with applicable EDTO
requirements.
4.6.3 Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to calculate maximum diversion flight time distance
for each aeroplane type and ensure that a take-off alternate aerodrome, when required in accordance with Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.4.1.1, is located within the prescribed distance from the aerodrome of departure. The operator would then
select and specify in the OFP the available alternate or alternates within the diversion time distance calculated at one
engine inoperative cruising speed under standard conditions in still air using the actual take-off mass.
Note.— Such calculations may be adjusted to align them with pre-existing and approved (by the applicable
Authority) EDTO calculations for the determination of maximum diversion time expressed in distance. For example,
operators may be permitted to define diversion distances for each aeroplane type, rounded up to easily recalled figures,
that are based on take-off masses representative of those used in operations. Refer to Chapter 5 and its Appendix 1 for
information related to variations in the way maximum diversion distances can be calculated in accordance with Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.4.4.
4.7 TAKE-OFF ALTERNATE AERODROMES —

OPERATING MINIMA AT ESTIMATED TIME OF USE
4.3.4.1.3 For an aerodrome to be selected as a take-off alternate the available information shall
indicate that, at the estimated time of use, the conditions will be at or above the operator’s established
aerodrome operating minima for that operation.
4.7.2 Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty,
that the take-off alternate aerodrome selected and specified in the OFP will be at or above the operator’s established
operating minima at the estimated time of use. The estimated time of use is established in accordance Annex 6, Part I,
4.3.5.4 (See 4.15 of this chapter) and should take into account the flying time at the appropriate speed (one engine
inoperative for twins, all engines operating for three- and four-engine aeroplanes or the approved EDTO diversion speed,
as applicable) with a suitable margin for variable factors including:
a) change in take-off time (e.g. if the take-off time changes and exceeds the margin defined by the State
of the Operator for the estimated time of use, then the estimated time of use for the take-off alternate
aerodrome should be updated);
b) uncertainty in the timing of meteorological changes.
4.7.3 The reference in the Standard to the operator’s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation
is understood to have the same meaning as the minima required at the aerodrome of departure, that is the minima
appropriate for a one engine inoperative landing. This should not be confused with “planning minima” which refers to the
operating minima plus incremental values of ceiling and visibility as determined by the State of the Operator and in
accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3.
4.8 EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROME SELECTION AND SPECIFICATION
4.8.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.2 states:
4.3.4.2 En-route alternate aerodromes
En-route alternate aerodromes, required by 4.7 for extended diversion time operations by aeroplanes
with two turbine engines, shall be selected and specified in the operational and air traffic services
(ATS) flight plans.
4.8.2 Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to identify and specify, in the operational and ATS
flight plans, en-route alternate aerodromes required in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.7.1.1 (b) and 4.7.2.5, which
stipulate that twin turbine engine aeroplanes shall not proceed beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome,
and that twin turbine engine aeroplanes as well as aeroplanes with more than two turbine engines shall not proceed
beyond the EDTO threshold unless the required en-route alternate aerodrome(s) will be available, and available
information indicates that conditions at those aerodromes will be at or above the operator’s established aerodrome
operating minima for the operation at the estimated time of use.
4.8.3 To practically define the “estimated time of use” of an aerodrome and identify en-route alternates at the
flight planning stage, the operator would need to first determine the earliest and latest Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA)
for each selected en-route alternate aerodrome(s). This time window is referred to as the “estimated time of use” in the
Standards and is defined as the period of time between the earliest and latest ETA for a given en-route alternate
aerodrome. In order to “identify and specify” such an aerodrome as an EDTO en-route alternate, the operator, at the
flight planning stage, would also need to verify that the meteorological forecast (over the applicable time window) is
equal or above the applicable planning minima.
4.8.4 Although “estimated time of use” is addressed for any aerodrome in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3, and discussed
in detail in 4.15 of this chapter, the complexities of EDTO and the associated identification of en-route alternate
aerodromes warrant special attention. For example, a commonly accepted method for determining the earliest and latest
ETA for a given en-route alternate or “estimated time of use” is as follows (Figure 4-1):
a) for the earliest ETA: consider a medical emergency diversion (no failure, All Engines Operating —
AEO) starting at the first Equal Time Point (ETP).
b) for the latest ETA: consider diversion following depressurization (FL100), One Engine Inoperative
(OEI) or AEO, starting at the second ETP.
Earliest ETA to Alt1:

1
Diversion from ETP1 to Alt1 with no failure (e.g. medical emergency) — AEO speed (e.g. VMO)
Latest ETA to Alt1:

2
Diversion from ETP2 to Alt1 following loss of pressurization — FL100, OEI or AEO speed (e.g. LRC)
Alt1
2
1
ETP1
B
ETP2
Figure 4-1. Method 1 for determining the time window for alternate 1 (flight from A to B)
4.8.5 For additional conservatism, the method in Figure 4-1 uses two different speeds and Flight Levels (FL) for
the diversions, e.g. AEO speed/FL for diversion 1 and OEI (or AEO) speed/FL100 for diversion 2. Nevertheless, it may
be acceptable to use the same speed/FL for both diversions. Another commonly accepted method of determining the
earliest and latest ETA for each required en-route alternate aerodrome(s) is to consider the entry and exit point instead
of the ETPs, as illustrated in Figure 4-2:
Earliest ETA to Alt1:

1 Diversion from WP1 to Alt1
Latest ETA to Alt1:

2 Diversion from WP2 to Alt1
Alt1
2
1
B
WP2
WP1
A
Figure 4-2. Method 2 for determining the time window for alternate 1 (flight from A to B)
4.8.6 It should be noted that the speed/FL used for the determination of estimated time of use in either method is
for flight preparation purposes only. The use of a speed/FL during flight preparation does not imply that the same
speed/FL must be used in the event of a diversion. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable for the flight crew to select a
more appropriate speed/FL for an actual diversion.
4.8.7 There is one less common but accepted methodology for the identification and specification of an en-route
alternate aerodrome that permits the dispatch of an EDTO flight when a forecast for the estimated time of use of the en-
route alternate is not available at the planning stage. It presumes an aeroplane will not proceed beyond the point of sole
reliance (WP sr) unless the flight crew obtains a valid meteorological forecast for the en-route alternate aerodrome that
satisfies the applicable planning minima (Figure 4-3).
4.8.8 In summary:
a) The time window for a given en-route alternate aerodrome is the period of time between the earliest
and latest ETA for a given en-route alternate aerodrome;
b) This time window is referred to as the “estimated time of use” in various Standards;
c) There are at least two commonly accepted methods for the determination of “estimated time of use”
for EDTO en-route alternates (Figures 4-1 and 4-2);
d) At flight planning stage or, if applicable, before proceeding beyond the WP sr, the operator or flight
crew checks that the meteorological forecast (over the applicable time window) is equal to or above
the applicable planning minima;
Note.— EDTO are subject to higher meteorological minima requirements than operating minima, used
for en-route decision making. This is to cater for uncertainty of the meteorological forecasts.
e) The estimated time of use is based on the Estimated Time of Departure (ETD). Should a significant
delay occur (e.g. ETD delayed by more than one hour), the time windows for the selected en-route
alternate aerodromes should be updated accordingly and the meteorological forecast verified again
considering the updated time window;
f) If a valid meteorological forecast is unavailable at the planning stage for a prospective EDTO en-route
alternate aerodrome, some CAAs may permit the dispatch of an EDTO flight based on the
determination and use of a WP sr (Figure 4-3).
WPsr: point of sole reliance on Alt1 (flight from A to B)
Sector of sole reliance on Alt1
Alt1
B
WPsr
A
Figure 4-3. Point of sole reliance on an en-route alternate aerodrome (flight A to B)

4.9 DESTINATION ALTERNATE AERODROMES — SELECTION AND SPECIFICATION:

ONE DESTINATION ALTERNATE
4.9.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3.1 a), states:
4.3.4.3 Destination alternate aerodromes
4.3.4.3.1 For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one
destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans,
unless:
a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight re-
planning to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all meteorological
conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a
reasonable certainty exists that:
1) the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions; and
2) separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome
with at least one runway having an operational instrument approach procedure; or
4.9.2 This Standard contains the criteria for consideration during the selection and specification of destination
alternate aerodromes as well as the conditions for operating into isolated aerodromes. Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3.1 a) 1)
stipulates that in order to forgo the selection and specification of a destination alternate aerodrome, a reasonable
certainty must exist that at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome, an approach and landing can be
made in VMC as defined by the State of the Operator. Provision 4.3.4.3.1 a) 2) further stipulates that two separate
usable runways, with at least one having an operational instrument approach procedure, be available at the destination
aerodrome at the estimated time of use. “Separate runways” are defined in Note 1 and are commonly considered to be
two distinct paved surfaces which may cross one another but not considered opposite ends of one runway (e.g. one
runway direction and its reciprocal do not constitute separate runways).
4.9.3 Practical conformance with 4.3.4.3.1 requires an operator to ensure at least one destination alternate
aerodrome is selected and specified in the OFP and ATS flight plan in accordance with the provisions of 4.3.4.3.1 a)
unless the destination aerodrome is isolated in accordance with 4.3.4.3.1 b). Provision 4.3.4.3.1 b) goes on to define
criteria applicable to operations into isolated aerodromes that are explained in 4.10 of this chapter.
Note 1.— The “estimated time of use” of the destination aerodrome is established in accordance with
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.4 and explained in detail in 4.15 of this chapter.
Note 2.— Refer to Chapter 5 and its Appendix 2 for information related to variations in the way alternate
aerodromes can be selected and specified in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4.
4.10 DESTINATION ALTERNATE AERODROMES — ISOLATED AERODROME PLANNING

AND POINT OF NO RETURN (PNR)
4.10.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3.1 b) states:
4.3.4.3.1 For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one
destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans,
unless:
b) the aerodrome is isolated. Operations into isolated aerodromes do not require the selection
of a destination alternate aerodrome(s) and shall be planned in accordance with 4.3.6.3 d) 4):
1) for each flight into an isolated aerodrome a point of no return shall be determined; and
2) a flight to be conducted to an isolated aerodrome shall not be continued past the point of
no return unless a current assessment of meteorological conditions, traffic and other
operational conditions indicate that a safe landing can be made at the estimated time of
use.
Note 1.— Separate runways are two or more runways at the same aerodrome configured such
that if one runway is closed, operations to the other runway(s) can be conducted.
Note 2.— Guidance on planning operations to isolated aerodromes is contained in the Flight
Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
4.10.2 This Standard and associated notes refer specifically to operations into isolated aerodromes that preclude
the selection and specification of a destination alternate aerodrome. An isolated aerodrome is defined in the SARPs as a
destination aerodrome for which there is no destination alternate aerodrome suitable for a given aeroplane type. As a
practical matter, however, destination aerodromes may be considered isolated by a State’s Authority when the fuel
required to go-around from Decision Altitude/Height (DA/H) or the Missed Approach Point at the destination aerodrome
and then divert to the nearest suitable alternate exceeds, for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the fuel required to hold at the
destination aerodrome for 90 minutes.
Note.— The aforementioned example presumes the protection of 30 minutes final reserve fuel at any
aerodrome.
4.10.3 This assumption is validated by Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3.1 b), which stipulates that operations into isolated
aerodromes shall be planned in accordance with 4.3.6.3 d) 4), which in turn stipulates that where the aerodrome of
intended landing is an isolated aerodrome a turbine-engined aeroplane shall have sufficient fuel to fly for two hours at
normal cruise consumption above the destination aerodrome, including final reserve fuel. Final reserve fuel in
accordance with 4.3.6.3 e) 2) is further defined for a turbine-engined aeroplane as fuel to fly for 30 minutes at holding
speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions. Therefore, fuel for two hours at isolated
aerodrome, required in accordance with 4.3.6.3 d) 4), minus 30 minutes final reserve fuel required in accordance with
4.3.6.3 e) 2) equals (approximately) 90 minutes hold over destination.
Note 1.— The examples in 4.10.2.and 4.10.3 presume, for illustrative purposes, that the difference in fuel
flow rate for a representative turbine aircraft at cruising altitude versus holding at 450 m is negligible.
Note 2.— For reciprocating engine aeroplane operations, isolated aerodrome fuel is the amount of fuel
required to fly for 45 minutes plus 15 per cent of the flight time planned to be spent at cruising level, including final
reserve fuel, or two hours, whichever is less. Again, assuming for illustrative purposes, that the difference in fuel flow
rate at cruise versus holding altitude for a representative aircraft is negligible and assuming the 2-hour maximum is
reached, approximately 75 minutes of hold fuel over destination would be available for a reciprocating engine aeroplane
in order to protect 45 minutes of final reserve fuel. It is also important to note that this is a best-case example, as
significantly less fuel could be allocated for isolated aerodrome operations for flights with relatively shorter cruise
segments.
4.10.4 In addition to the computation and carriage of isolated aerodrome fuel in accordance with 4.3.6.3 d) 4),
conformance with 4.3.4.3.1 b) requires the determination of a point of no return [PNR]. In the context of isolated
aerodrome operations, a PNR is the point of last possible diversion to an en-route alternate aerodrome (Figure 4-4). The
Standard specifies that this point is to be determined on each flight to an isolated aerodrome. While this point can be
calculated and specified in the OFP, such a calculation does not typically take into account any discretionary fuel, or the
real-time changes in fuel consumption that will occur after departure.
4.10.5 The actual PNR will therefore often be reached later in the flight than the point originally calculated in the
OFP. Operators should therefore provide practical instructions so that the flight crew can calculate the actual position of
the PNR. These, for example, may take the form of a fuel plotting chart or practical instruction in the use of the
calculating capabilities of the FMS.
Note 1.— Refer to Chapter 6 of this manual for practical instructions regarding the in-flight computation of
the PNR.
Note 2.— A PNR may coincide with the Final Decision Point used in DP Planning or the Pre-Determined
Point used in PDP planning. These flight planning methodologies are explained in detail in Appendix 3 to Chapter 5.
4.11 DESTINATION ALTERNATE AERODROMES — SELECTION AND SPECIFICATION:

TWO DESTINATION ALTERNATES
4.3.4.3.2 Two destination alternate aerodromes shall be selected and specified in the
operational and ATS flight plans when, for the destination aerodrome:
a) meteorological conditions at the estimated time of use will be below the operator’s
established aerodrome operating minima for that operation; or
b) meteorological information is not available.
4.11.2 Conformance with this Standard requires the operator to select and specify in the OFP, at the point of
departure, a minimum of two alternate aerodromes if the destination aerodrome, at the estimated time of use, is forecast
to be below minima, or forecast meteorological information is unavailable.
Note.— Appendix 2 to Chapter 5 addresses alternative methodologies for the selection and specification of
destination alternate aerodromes.
Chapter 4. Understanding
U Prescriptive Co
ompliance 4-13
Isolated A
Aerodrome
Greater than (approximatelyy)

90 minutes H Hold Fuel (overr
destination) re
equired to reacch
alte
ernate
Pointt of No
Return
n (PNR)
Last Available
A En-route
Alterrnate Aerodrom
me
NNote: Plannedd PNR does n not take

into account discretionary fuel or
in
cchanges in fu uel consumptio on after
ddeparture a
and require
es re-
ccomputation in--flight.
De
eparture Aerodrome
Figure
F 4-4. Point of No Retturn (PNR)
4.12 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS — VFR FLIGHT
4.3.5 Meteorological conditions
4.3.5.1 A flight to be conducted in accordance with the visual flight rules shall not be
commenced unless current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts
indicate that the meteorological conditions along the route or that part of the route to be flown under
the visual flight rules will, at the appropriate time, be such as to enable compliance with these rules.
4.12.2 Conformance with this Standard requires the operator to have a means to determine if operations planned
in accordance with Visual Flight Rules (VFR) can be conducted such that, at the appropriate time during the flight, the
meteorological conditions encountered make compliance with VFR, as defined by the State, possible.
4.12.3 Practically speaking such a means would entail identifying the VFR segments of a proposed route,
obtaining reliable and accurate meteorological reports and forecasts at the planning stage and ensuring, to the greatest
practical extent, that VFR operations will remain possible at the estimated time of use of the segment. Confidence in pre-
flight planning activities would be contingent on monitoring of en-route meteorological conditions by the flight crew and
operational control personnel to validate assumptions made during pre-flight planning.
4.13 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS —

COMMENCING OR CONTINUING AN IFR FLIGHT

…
4.3.5.2 A flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules shall not:
a) take off from the departure aerodrome unless the meteorological conditions, at the time of use,
are at or above the operator’s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation; and
b) take off or continue beyond the point of in-flight re-planning unless at the aerodrome of
intended landing or at each alternate aerodrome to be selected in compliance with 4.3.4,
current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts indicate that
the meteorological conditions will be, at the estimated time of use, at or above the operator’s
established aerodrome operating minima for that operation.
4.13.2 Conformance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.2 a) requires an operator to have a means to ensure, in order for
operations to be conducted in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), that a flight cannot take off unless current
meteorological conditions are at or above the operator’s established aerodrome take-off operating minima for the
operation.
4.13.3 Conformance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.2 b) requires an operator to have a means to ensure, in order for
operations to be conducted in accordance with IFR, that a flight cannot take off or continue from the point of in-flight re-
planning unless current meteorological conditions are forecast to be at or above the operator’s established aerodrome
operating minima for the planned operation at the estimated time of use of the destination, en-route alternate aerodrome,
or destination alternate, as applicable. The “estimated time of use” of the destination and/or each alternate aerodrome is
established in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.4 and explained in detail in 4.15 of this chapter.
4.14 ALTERNATE AERODROME PLANNING MINIMA — ESTABLISHING INCREMENTAL

VALUES FOR CEILING AND VISIBILITY
4.14.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3, states:
4.3.5.3 To ensure that an adequate margin of safety is observed in determining whether or not
an approach and landing can be safely carried out at each alternate aerodrome, the operator shall
specify appropriate incremental values for height of cloud base and visibility, acceptable to the State of
the Operator, to be added to the operator’s established aerodrome operating minima.
Note.— Guidance on the selection of these incremental values is contained in the Flight Planning
and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
4.14.2 The operator’s established aerodrome operating minima specify the limits of usability of an aerodrome for:
a) take-off, expressed in terms of runway visual range and/or visibility and, if necessary, cloud conditions;
b) landing in instrument approach and landing operations, expressed in terms of cloud conditions (if
necessary), visibility and/or runway visual range and Decision Altitude/Height (DA/H) or Minimum
Descent Altitude/Height (MDA/H), as appropriate.
4.14.3 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3, refers to the addition of appropriate incremental values for height of cloud base
and visibility to aerodrome operating minima. Such minima, however, are predominantly defined in terms of required
ceiling, DA/H, MDA/H, visibility and/or runway visual range, as applicable. As such, the incremental values specified in
the Standard functionally refer to additions to the expressions used by the operator to define operating minima.
Note.— Ceiling is defined as the height above the ground or water, expressed in metres or feet, of the
lowest cloud base below 6 000 m (20 000 ft) covering more than half the sky and is typically reported as broken or
overcast in meteorological reports.
4.14.4 Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to have a means to ensure, with a reasonable
degree of certainty, that at the estimated time of use of an alternate aerodrome, the meteorological conditions will be at
or above the operator’s established operating minima for an instrument approach. Because of the natural variability of
meteorological conditions with time, as well as the need to determine the suitability of an alternate aerodrome before
departure, the minima used for planning purposes or “planning minima” are always higher than the operating minima
required to initiate an instrument approach. As such, operators use planning minima to provide for deterioration in
meteorological conditions after the planning stage and to increase the probability that the flight will land safely after a
diversion to an alternate aerodrome. This is especially important in cases where the time period during which the
aerodrome is either required to be available, or the interval from the point of flight planning to the potential use of the
alternate aerodrome, is considerable.
4.14.5 In order to practically conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3, an operator would have detailed instructions in its
operations manual for determining the suitability of alternate aerodromes. Such instructions should specify that suitable
increments be applied to the operator’s established operating minima for planning purposes. Planning minima are
usually expressed in a table that contains incremental increases to the expressions that define the operating minima for
an approach such as ceiling, DA/H, MDA/H, visibility and/or runway visual range. The increments are typically expressed
as a number of metres, feet or miles to be added as adjustments to the operating minima. It is important to note that
these increments may not be the same for all alternate aerodromes as different types of alternates (take-off, destination
and en route) may have different and distinct planning minima.
4.14.6 In its simplest form, a planning minima table may be based on straightforward additions to the DA/H, MDA
and visibility associated with the applicable operating minima for a particular type of approach. This is true in the case of
an EDTO alternate planning minima table used in Europe that is provided for illustrative purposes only in Table 4-1.
Note.— EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents.
4.14.7 Another type of planning minima table addresses potential failures of airborne or ground-based navigation
systems and is constructed based on what is commonly referred to as the “one step down method.” These types of
tables, also used predominantly in Europe, take into account the possibility that a system malfunction, on the ground or
in the aeroplane, may result in higher operating minima required for the remaining available instrument approach and
landing. Table 4-2 is an example of such a table provided for illustrative purposes only.
Table 4-1. (EC) No 859/2008 Planning Minima — EDTO
Meteorological minima
Approach facility Alternate airfield ceiling Visibility/RVR
Precision approach procedure Authorized DH/DA plus an increment Authorized visibility plus an
of 200 ft increment of 800 m
Non-precision approach or circling Authorized MDH/MDA plus an Authorized visibility plus an

approach increment of 400 ft increment of 1 500 m
Table 4-2. (EC) No 859/2008 Planning Minima — Planning minima — Destination alternate aerodrome,
Isolated destination aerodrome, 3% ERA and En-route alternate aerodrome
Type of approach Planning minima
Cat II and III Cat I (Note 1)
Cat I Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2)
Non-precision Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2) plus
200 ft / 1 000 m
Circling Circling
Note 1.— RVR.

Note 2.— The ceiling must be at or above the MDH.
4.14.8 A type of planning minima table used predominately in the United States is commonly referred to as a
“One NAVAID, Two NAVAID table.” This type of table considers the number of navigational facilities providing precision
or non-precision approach capability. It also considers the number of different, and in the case of EDTO, separate
runways available for use at an aerodrome. Table 4-3 is an example of an alternate planning minima table used in the
United States and is provided for illustrative purposes only. The complete table including the context for its use is
included in Appendix 1 to this chapter.
Note.— EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents.

Table 4-3. United States Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minima
Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minima
Approach Facility Configuration Ceiling Visibility
For airports with at least one operational Add 400 ft to MDA(H) or DA(H), Add 1 statute mile or
navigational facility providing a straight-in non- as applicable. 1 600 m to the landing
precision approach procedure, or Category I minimum.
precision approach, or, when applicable, a
circling manoeuvre from an IAP.
For airports with at least two operational Add 200 ft to higher DA(H) or Add ½ sm or 800 m to the
navigational facilities, each providing a straight-in MDA(H) of the two approaches higher authorized landing
approach procedure to different * suitable used. minimum of the two
runways. approaches used.
* In this context, a “different runway” is any runway with a different runway number, whereas separate runways
cannot be different ends of the same runway.
4.14.9 There are advantages and disadvantages to all of these methods used to determine planning minima. For
example, a simple addition to the required (operating) ceiling and visibility as illustrated in Table 4-1 protects against
deterioration of meteorological conditions up to the difference between the established operating minima and the
planning minima. This margin, however, may be insufficient to cover the loss of a precision approach capability with the
consequent switch to a non-precision approach with particularly high minima.
4.14.10 Conversely if the “next step down” method is used as illustrated in Table 4-2 and an approach happens to
have minima close to the lower limits of the precision approach (e.g. at an aerodrome relatively free from obstacles), the
planning minima margins may not cover a plausible unforecast deterioration of meteorological conditions. Additionally,
many of the conventional planning minima methodologies do not yet account for advances in technology such as
RNP-AR, GLS and others.
4.14.11 As there are no simple solutions that will ensure an aerodrome will be at or above operating minima at the
estimated time of use, any methodology used should be combined with other methods designed to properly mitigate the
safety risks associated with flight planning (e.g. airport condition monitoring, operational control systems, flight
monitoring, fuel planning, advanced communication systems, advanced technologies).
4.14.12 Finally, Annex 6, Part I, provisions require, inter alia, that operators establish processes approved by the
State of the Operator for the purposes of ensuring alternate aerodromes, to the greatest practical extent, will be
available for use when needed. To this end, alternate aerodrome planning minima tables should take the following into
consideration, as applicable:
a) estimated time of use;
b) increments to be added to operating landing ceiling and/or visibility;
c) one engine inoperative operations in the case of take-off planning minima;
d) type of approaches available;
e) number of navigational aids upon which approaches are based;

f) EDTO; and
g) additional criteria requirements for designating alternates with Required Navigation Performance —
Approval Required (e.g. RNP, RNP AR, SBAS, GBAS or GLS approaches);
Note.— Appendix 1 to this chapter contains an example of a United States OpSpec, provided for
illustrative purposes. The OpSpec combines many of the attributes of the conventional methods for determining planning
minima discussed in this chapter with contemporary criteria with the potential to increase the likelihood that an approach
and landing will be safely accomplished at an alternate aerodrome, when necessary.
4.15 ALTERNATE AERODROME PLANNING MINIMA — ESTABLISHING ESTIMATED TIME OF USE
4.3.5.4 The State of the Operator shall approve a margin of time established by the operator for
the estimated time of use of an aerodrome.
Note.— Guidance on establishing an appropriate margin of time for the estimated time of use of
an aerodrome is contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
4.15.2 Conformance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.4, and several other SARPs discussed in this chapter requires an
operator to have a means to establish the “expected time of use” of an alternate aerodrome. In order to accomplish this
aim, a common meaning of this term should be established by the State of the Operator and understood by the operator.
While the estimated time of use, for example, of a destination aerodrome may simply be given by its ETA, the time
period required for an en-route alternate aerodrome can be extended from the earliest to latest possible time of diversion
(see 4.8 “En-route alternate aerodrome selection and specification” in this chapter). In addition, the margin referred to in
4.3.5.3 would be added to cover uncertainty of flight time estimates due to ground and airborne delays and/or the
uncertainty in the timing of meteorological events.
4.15.3 As such, and in order to conform with 4.3.5.4, the State of the Operator should require the operator to
define and apply margins to the estimated time(s) of arrival to allow for unexpected variations in departure time, flight
time, and timing of change in meteorological conditions. Additionally, the operator should consider the time of
applicability of temporary or transient events.
4.15.4 A widely accepted and acceptable time margin used by many national authorities is one hour before and
after earliest and latest time of arrival. This may be reduced in special circumstances, e.g. if the meteorological forecast
is only valid for the time of operation of the aerodrome and does not cover the period before opening.
4.15.5 Table 4-4 is an “Application of Aerodrome Forecasts to Pre-Flight Planning” chart used in Europe and
provided for illustrative purposes. It represents a comprehensive treatment of the many issues related to the selection of
alternate aerodromes and the application of time margins in order to define the estimated time of use. It also
differentiates between take-off, destination, en-route and EDTO alternates as well as provides guidance as to how
forecasts should be interpreted and/or applied at the planning stage. Operators may choose to simplify this for ease of
use, but the resulting instructions to crews should be no less restrictive.
Table 4-4. AR AMC-OPS 1.297 — Application of Aerodrome Forecasts Table
APPLICATION OF AERODROME FORECASTS (TAF & TREND) TO PRE-FLIGHT PLANNING (ICAO ANNEX 3 refers)
1. APPLICATION OF INITIAL PART OF TAF (For aerodrome planning minima see JAR-OPS 1.297)
a) Applicable time period: From the start of the TAF validity period up to the time of applicability of the first subsequent “FM…*” or “BECMG” or, if no “FM” or “BECMG” is given, up
to the end of the validity period of the TAF.
b) Application of forecast: The prevailing weather conditions forecast in the initial part of the TAF should be fully applied with the exception of the mean wind and gusts (and
crosswind) which should be applied in accordance with the policy in the column “BECMG AT and FM” in the table below. This may however be overruled
temporarily by a “TEMPO” or “PROB” if applicable acc. to the table below.
2. APPLICATION OF FORECAST FOLLOWING CHANGE INDICATORS IN TAF AND TREND
TAF or TREND for FM (alone) and BECMG (alone), BECMG FM, TEMPO (alone), TEMPO FM, TEMPO TL, TEMPO FM … TL, PROB30/40 PROB TEMPO
AERODROME BECMG AT: BECMG TL, BECMG FM…* TL in (alone)
PLANNED AS: case of:
Deterioration Deterioration Improvement Deterioration Improvement Deterioration

and in any case and
Improvement Transient/Showery Persistent Conditions Improvement
Conditions in connection with e.g. haze,
in connection with short-lived mist, fog, dust/sandstorm,
weather phenomena, e.g. continuous precipitation
thunderstorms, showers
DESTINATION Applicable from Applicable from Applicable from Not applicable Applicable
at ETA ± 1 HR the start of the the time of start the time of end of
change. of the change. the change.
TAKE-OFF Mean wind: Should be

ALTERNATE within required limits.
at ETA ± 1 HR
DEST. ALTERNATE Mean wind: Mean wind: Mean wind: Gusts: May be disregarded.
at ETA ± 1 HR Should be within Should be within Should be within
required limits. required limits. required limits.
Deterioration may
EN-ROUTE Gusts: May be Gusts: May be Gusts: May be Mean wind and gusts
be disregarded;
ALTERNATE disregarded. disregarded disregarded exceeding required limits
Improvement
at ETA ± 1 HR may be disregarded. Should be
should be
(See JAR-OPS disregarded.
disregarded
AMC 1.255)
including mean
ETOPS ENRT ALTN Applicable from Applicable from Applicable from Applicable if below Applicable if below wind and gusts.
at earliest/latest the time of start the time of start the time of end of applicable landing minima applicable landing minima
ETA ± 1 HR of change. of change. the change.
Mean wind: Mean wind: Mean wind: Mean wind: Should be Mean wind: Should be
Should be within Should be within Should be within within required limits. within required limits.
required limits. required limits. required limits.
Gusts exceeding Gusts exceeding Gusts exceeding Gusts exceeding crosswind Gusts exceeding crosswind
crosswind limits crosswind limits crosswind limits limits should be fully applied. limits should be fully applied.
should be fully should be fully should be fully
applied. applied. applied.
Note 1.— “Required limits” are those contained in the Operations Manual.
Note 2.— If promulgated aerodrome forecasts do not comply with the requirements of ICAO Annex 3, operators should ensure that guidance in the application of these reports is provided.
* The space following “FM” should always include a time group e.g. “FM1030”.
4.16 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — BASIC FUEL PLANNING AND DEVIATIONS

FROM THE PLANNED OPERATION
4.3.6 Fuel requirements
4.3.6.1 An aeroplane shall carry a sufficient amount of usable fuel to complete the planned flight
safely and to allow for deviations from the planned operation.
4.16.2 This Standard prescribes the baseline criteria for any methodology used to determine usable fuel required.
Simply put, it requires operators to carry sufficient fuel to complete a flight safely while taking into account;
a) aeroplane-specific data in accordance with 4.3.6.2 a),
b) operating conditions for the planned operation in accordance with 4.3.6.2 b), and;
c) deviations from the planned operation as defined by 4.3.6.3 c).
4.16.3 Overall conformance with this Standard requires conformance with the remaining applicable criteria of
4.3.6.3 to be considered in the pre-flight computation of usable fuel required to complete the planned flight. A planned
flight begins from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off. The State of the Operator, however,
can approve operational variations from selected criteria of 4.3.6.3 as described in 4.3.6.6. Such variations do not,
however, relieve an operator of the responsibility to conform to the criteria of 4.3.6.1 and are described in detail in
Chapter 5 and related appendices.
4.17 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — BASIS FOR CALCULATION

OF REQUIRED USABLE FUEL
4.3.6.2 The amount of usable fuel to be carried shall, as a minimum, be based on:
a) the following data;
1) current aeroplane-specific data derived from a fuel consumption monitoring system, if

available; or
2) if current aeroplane-specific data are not available, data provided by the aeroplane
manufacturer; and
b) the operating conditions for the planned flight including:
1) anticipated aeroplane mass;
2) Notices to Airmen;
3) current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts;

4) air traffic services procedures, restrictions and anticipated delays; and
5) the effects of deferred maintenance items and/or configuration deviations.
4.17.2 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 a) defines the aeroplane-specific or manufacturer data that would be considered
during the pre-flight computation of the usable fuel required to satisfy the specifications of 4.3.6.1. Conformance with this
provision requires operators to use the fuel consumption data provided by the aeroplane manufacturer as the basis for
calculating the applicable components of the usable fuel required to safely complete a planned flight. Alternatively, an
operator may base this calculation on aeroplane-specific data derived from a Fuel Consumption Monitoring (FCM)
system. The attributes of an FCM system are explained in detail in Appendix 5 to this chapter. Provision 4.3.6.2 b) goes
on to further define the operating conditions to be considered during the flight planning stage including computed
aeroplane mass, expected meteorological conditions and anticipated ATC restrictions and delays. It is important to note
that the fuel requirements to address foreseen factors that may affect operation conditions as described in 4.3.6.2 b) are
considered part of the required trip fuel per 4.3.6.3 b).
4.17.3 Together, 4.3.6.1 and 4.3.6.2 form the basic foundation for the means to complete the pre-flight calculation
of usable fuel required in accordance with the criteria of 4.3.6.3. Strict conformance to such criteria have and can
continue to contribute significantly to ensuring sufficient fuel is carried to complete flights safely. Such an approach also
offers advantages to regulators and operators that rely on prescriptive compliance with regulation as it does not require
sophisticated systems or specialized knowledge in either use or monitoring. That is, unless operators can avail
themselves of efficiencies to be gained through the deployment of a fuel consumption monitoring programme.
4.18 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — COMPONENTS OF THE PRE-FLIGHT CALCULATION

OF REQUIRED USABLE FUEL
4.18.1 Fundamentally, Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3, defines the terms that comprise the pre-flight calculation of usable
fuel required to complete a flight safely. Furthermore it comprises the fuel which is required to be on board the aeroplane
from the moment it first moves for the purpose of taking off. These terms are used throughout this manual to represent
the variables in an equation that must be solved prior to each flight.
4.3.6.3 The pre-flight calculation of usable fuel required shall include:
a) taxi fuel, which shall be an amount of fuel expected to be consumed before take-off;
b) trip fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel required to enable the aeroplane to fly from take-
off or the point of in-flight re-planning until landing at the destination aerodrome taking into
account the operating conditions of 4.3.6.2 b);
c) contingency fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel required to compensate for unforeseen
factors. It shall be five per cent of the planned trip fuel or of the fuel required from the point of
in-flight re-planning based on the consumption rate used to plan the trip fuel but, in any case,
shall not be lower than the amount required to fly for five minutes at holding speed at 450 m
(1 500 ft) above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions;
Note.— Unforeseen factors are those which could have an influence on the fuel
consumption to the destination aerodrome, such as deviations of an individual aeroplane
from the expected fuel consumption data, deviations from forecast meteorological conditions,
extended taxi times before take-off, and deviations from planned routings and/or cruising
levels/altitudes.
d) destination alternate fuel, which shall be:
1) where a destination alternate aerodrome is required, the amount of fuel required to

enable the aeroplane to:
i) perform a missed approach at the destination aerodrome;
ii) climb to the expected cruising altitude;
iii) fly the expected routing;
iv) descend to the point where the expected approach is initiated; and
v) conduct the approach and landing at the destination alternate aerodrome; or
2) where two destination alternate aerodromes are required, the amount of fuel, as
calculated in 4.3.6.3 d) 1), required to enable the aeroplane to proceed to the destination
alternate aerodrome which requires the greater amount of alternate fuel; or
3) where a flight is operated without a destination alternate aerodrome, the amount of fuel
required to enable the aeroplane to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft)
above destination aerodrome elevation in standard conditions; or
4) where the aerodrome of intended landing is an isolated aerodrome:
i) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for
45 minutes plus 15 per cent of the flight time planned to be spent at cruising level,
including final reserve fuel, or two hours, whichever is less; or
ii) for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for two hours at
normal cruise consumption above the destination aerodrome, including final reserve
fuel;
e) final reserve fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel calculated using the estimated mass on
arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome or the destination aerodrome, when no
destination alternate aerodrome is required:
1) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly 45 minutes, under
speed and altitude conditions specified by the State of the Operator; or
2) for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed
at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions;
f) additional fuel, which shall be the supplementary amount of fuel required if the minimum fuel
calculated in accordance with 4.3.6.3 b), c), d) and e) is not sufficient to:
1) allow the aeroplane to descend as necessary and proceed to an alternate aerodrome in

the event of engine failure or loss of pressurization, whichever requires the greater
amount of fuel based on the assumption that such a failure occurs at the most critical
point along the route;
i) fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in
standard conditions; and
ii) make an approach and landing;
2) allow an aeroplane engaged in EDTO to comply with the EDTO critical fuel scenario as
established by the State of the Operator;
3) meet additional requirements not covered above;
Note 1.— Fuel planning for a failure that occurs at the most critical point along a route
(4.3.6.3 f) 1)) may place the aeroplane in a fuel emergency situation based on 4.3.7.2.
Note 2.— Guidance on EDTO critical fuel scenarios are contained in Attachment D;
g) discretionary fuel, which shall be the extra amount of fuel to be carried at the discretion of the
pilot-in-command.
4.18.3 It is likely that up until very recently, the terms used in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3, were not universally
understood or applied. This is the primary reason why they are presented in great detail. While, many of the terms
require little additional explanation, others require clarification to ensure they are not misunderstood or misapplied.
“Contingency fuel” and “additional fuel”, for example, are two such terms with the potential to cause confusion that will
be explained in detail later in this chapter.
4.18.4 It is important for authorities and operators to have a clear and common understanding of the terms used
in fuel planning as such an understanding is the key to regulatory oversight and operator compliance. This is equally true
for operators using a prescriptive approach to compliance as it is for those using a performance-based approach. It is
especially important for States of the Operator that permit performance-based compliance in accordance with 4.3.6.6, as
such an approach is dependent on the clear and consistent definition and understanding of an operational baseline
described in 4.3.6.3.
4.18.5 Consider, for example, a State’s Authority that is trying to determine if an operator is in overall
conformance with a regulation based on Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3. Prescriptive compliance to regulation could easily be
determined in this case if the operator could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Authority that fuel is allocated as
described in the SARPs. Operators that use significantly different terms than those prescribed in the SARPs, however,
may have difficulty with such a demonstration. The difficulty arises when the Authority cannot discern, due to differences
in terminology, whether the terms used by the operator are substantially equivalent, allocate fuel in a similar fashion, and,
when combined, result in an equivalent or greater amount of fuel.
4.18.6 Another, more precise, example involves an operator that does not carry five per cent contingency fuel
exactly as defined in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c). An Authority may consider an operator in prescriptive compliance
without the need for an operational variation if the terminology and contingency fuel calculation method used results in a
demonstrably equivalent (or greater) amount of fuel. Conversely, an operator may be deemed out of compliance or
require an operational variation if the terminology used is largely inconsistent with 4.3.6.3 c) and/or the calculation
method used results in a lesser amount of fuel.
4.18.7 It is important to note that there are many such scenarios that require careful scrutiny of the criteria in
4.3.6.3 to determine if the pre-flight calculation of the usable fuel produces the desired result. It is also important to
understand that the provisions are not intended to create duplication if, for example, an operator chooses to allocate fuel
for holding apart from contingency fuel or uses a variable fuel reserve to encompass contingency and final reserve fuel.
In short, the SARPs provide the basic variables for an equation that will result in the prescribed amount of usable fuel
but it is up to the State of the Operator, the Authority and the operator to ensure, regardless of the variables used, that
sufficient usable fuel is uplifted in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements and to complete the planned
flight safely.
Note 1.— Appendix 2 to this chapter provides an example of prescriptive fuel planning, used by a State’s
Authority that conforms to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3, but uses different terms to comprise the equation for the pre-flight
calculation of usable fuel required to complete a flight safely.
Note 2.— Operational variations applicable to the calculation of taxi, trip, contingency, destination alternate
aerodrome, and additional fuel in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, are described in detail in Chapter 5 and
related appendices.
4.19 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — TAXI FUEL
4.19.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 a) defines taxi fuel as the amount of fuel expected to be consumed before take-off
which typically takes into account “local conditions” at the departure aerodrome and auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel
consumption. Practically speaking, this includes the fuel required for engine start and to move an aircraft under its own
power considering the route to the departure runway based on known taxi times (when available) for specific airports
and runway configurations.
4.19.2 For the purpose of taxi fuel calculations “local conditions” must typically also be taken into account and
refer to conditions or occurrences that would contribute to increased fuel consumption prior to take-off including but not
limited to “foreseeable” occurrences such as:
a) ground holding;
b) ATC metering programmes;
c) remote de/anti-icing;
d) aircraft engine and wing anti-ice use;
e) single runway operations; and
f) any other occurrence with the potential to increase taxi time.
4.19.3 It is important for operators to promote the accurate and, where possible, “predictive” computation of taxi
fuel in order to ensure foreseeable occurrences are appropriately taken into account at the planning stage. To this end
each taxi fuel calculation is typically based on a detailed analysis that considers the aforementioned criteria as well as
the aircraft type, time of day, and historical seasonal performance data. In the absence of a more detailed analysis,
however, certain predefined taxi fuel values may be established which cover normal operations for a specific operating
environment. Table 4-5 is an example of how predefined taxi fuels, based on an aircraft manufacturer’s all-engine taxi
fuel flow rates, can be established by an operator.
Table 4-5. Example of predefined taxi fuels by aircraft type
Taxi fuel for 10 minutes at all engine Taxi fuel for 20 minutes at all engine
consumption rates, startup, and consumption rates, startup, and
Aircraft Type pre-departure APU run-up (kilograms) pre-departure APU run-up (kilograms)
15 kg/minute; normally 200 kg including 15 kg/minute; normally 400 kg including

A319 30 kg for APU 30 kg for APU
70 kg/minute; normally 1 000 kg 70 kg/minute; normally 1 700 kg including

B747 including 300 kg for APU 300 kg for APU
4.19.4 It is important to note that taxi fuel does not account for delays that were unknown at the planning stage.
Fuel to account for such occurrences would normally be added by the PIC just prior to departure as discretionary fuel or
accounted for in contingency fuel. This is important as the burning of fuel over and above the planned taxi fuel before
take-off can affect the remaining quantities in the usable fuel equation (see Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 b), c), d), e) or f)) or
the decision to continue a flight after commencement (e.g. to take-off or to continue from the point of in-flight
re-planning).
4.19.5 The decision, therefore, to burn into other fuels, including contingency fuel, should be carefully considered
to ensure the remaining fuel is sufficient for the flight taking into account any conceivable occurrences that would require
re-analysis and, if necessary, adjustment of the planned operation.
Note.— Appendix 6 to Chapter 5 contains an example of a statistical taxi fuel programme that conforms to
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 a) and in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6.
4.20 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — TRIP FUEL
4.20.1 Trip fuel is simply defined by Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 b) as the fuel required to fly from the departure
aerodrome or from the point of in-flight re-planning to the destination aerodrome, taking into account the aeroplane-
specific or manufacturer data specified in 4.3.6.2 a) and operating conditions of 4.3.6.2 b). In actual practice, however,
the calculation of trip fuel is typically a complex process that is dependent on numerous underlying and interdependent
activities. In the end, however, the intent of every trip fuel calculation is to ensure, to the greatest practical extent, that
the planned fuel burn is equal to or greater than the actual fuel burn.
4.20.2 Assumptions made during the calculation of trip fuel also directly impact the determination of other fuels
such as contingency fuel and discretionary fuel. It is therefore important that operational control personnel and flight
crew are aware of any such assumptions with the potential to validate or invalidate decisions made subsequent to the
pre-flight calculation of trip fuel. For example, operators may:
a) Use a hull-specific Fuel Consumption Monitoring (FCM) that is based on airframe drag and engine
degradation over a specific rolling (e.g. 90-day) time period, via Aircraft Performance Monitoring (APM)
programmes from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Such monitoring programmes
typically use actual fuel consumption rates for all phases of flight (take-off, climb, cruise, descent,
approach and landing) and bring a level of accuracy to trip fuel calculations that cannot be attained in
their absence.
For example, if an operator does not use an FCM programme and uses fuel burn data from the OEM
without an accurate correction for degradation in hull performance, the planned trip fuel is unlikely to
be equal to or greater than the actual. Such operators may therefore use a conservative (e.g. 4 per
cent) fleet average fuel burn correction, due to a lack of APM availability, as it is conservative and
covers all of the hulls in a particular fleet. Alternatively, such operators may choose to increase
contingency fuel to account for an “unknown” degradation in specific hull performance;
b) Generate flight plans 2-3 hours before scheduled departure based on a forecast ZFW/payload that
uses a blend of booked and historical passengers, baggage and cargo. These assumptions can result
in trip fuel amounts that are either optimistic or conservative depending on actual outcomes. A lower
than planned ZFW at pushback, for example, could result in a 3 per cent/hour trip fuel reduction (e.g.
assuming a 3 000 kg/hour average fuel consumption rate, 3 tons less ZFW on a 10-hour trip could
reduce the trip fuel by 900 kg);
c) Base flight plans and trip fuel on lengthy IFR departure and arrival routing procedures (longest RNAV
SID to longest RNAV STAR). In the real world, these routings may rarely occur, thus introducing some
conservatism into the trip fuel calculation. Conversely, those operators capable of assessing the
probability of which SID/STAR combination will be used on a given city pair, including the likely track
miles to be flown, may account for some or all of the fuel for such procedures as part of SCF,
discretionary fuel or extra fuel. This would make the trip fuel calculation less conservative and more
reflective of real-world performance based on statistical analysis.
Another example of lengthy arrival procedures that may or may not be flown are Point Merge STAR
procedures. “Point Merge” is used by ATS units in some States in lieu of racetrack pattern holding,
DME Arcs, delaying vectors or other traditional forms of air traffic sequencing. Simply put, Point Merge
STAR procedures are but one variation of linear holding that exploits performance-based
navigation (PBN) equipment and procedures. There are other variations of linear holding
(e.g. “tromboning”) that are similar to Point Merge in that they include a prescribed ground track that
may or may not be flown based on traffic density. It is important to note, however, that ATS units
implementing Point Merge STARs (or similar PBN procedures) typically publish statistics showing the
portion of the Merge Point Arc flown by arriving aircraft during the different hourly bands of the day or
the week.
When planning for a Point Merge STAR, fuel for the direct STAR to the merge point may be included
in the trip fuel but the fuel required to account for the probability that the entire merge point procedure
would be flown could be accounted for in other fuels such as in the contingency fuel calculated in
accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6 and Appendix 4 to Chapter 5 of this manual. The foundation
for such calculations is the availability of relevant data related to the average part of the merge point
procedure to be flown obtained either from internal or external sources (operator and/or ATS unit).
From the operator perspective, such information could come from internal data collection processes
that support SCF calculations. From the perspective of an ATS unit that has implemented procedures
to support Point Merge, such information could be provided in the form of regularly published statistics
allowing high levels of predictability regarding the sections of the linear hold on the Point Merge Arc
which may be flown. In either case, these statistics will allow pilots to determine, according to the
expected time of arrival, the contingency/discretionary/extra fuel (as applicable) needed for safe flight
completion.
It is important to note, however, that operators lacking the requisite skills, expertise and knowledge to
support SCF calculations or to otherwise predict the likelihood that an entire procedure will be flown
may account for the entire flight plan track to the destination, including potential SID/STAR
combinations, in trip fuel and discretionary fuel in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 b) and g),
respectively. In either case, operational control personnel and flight crew must be aware of how fuel
for such procedures is accounted for in order to determine the level of conservatism built into the trip
fuel calculation.
d) Generate “Speed Up” flight plans at the planning stage to protect on-time performance. Such flight
plans manipulate Cost Index/Mach to achieve a certain required time of arrival with the obvious cost of
increased fuel burn. Conversely, a return to more economical Cost Index/Mach would yield a trip fuel
reduction;
e) Voluntarily or based on operational requirements (e.g. in-flight re-planning) choose to “protect” some
or all of the contingency fuel to the destination aerodrome which would require an increase in the trip
fuel. In other words, if an operator chooses to protect 5 per cent of the trip fuel as contingency fuel to
the destination then the trip fuel will need to be adjusted upward to account for the extra weight. For
example, 5 per cent of a 100-ton trip burn is 5 tons. If an operator plans to carry 5 tons of contingency
fuel to destination an additional 2 tons of trip fuel may be needed to carry it, so on a 10-hour flight an
operator could board 7 tons; 5 tons for the 5 per cent contingency fuel + 2 tons additional trip fuel to
carry and protect it all the way to destination.
In cases where contingency fuel is not protected to the destination aerodrome there is no adjustment
made to the trip fuel, and fuel for contingencies is simply added as a straight percentage of the trip fuel.
The concept, therefore, of “protected” and “unprotected” contingency fuel, if applicable, must be
clearly understood as any given flight may have more or less (fuel) buffer when flights do not unfold as
originally planned.
4.20.3 These are only a few of the factors that contribute to the computation of trip fuel as well as the confidence
operators and flight crews have in its accuracy. It is this confidence that further ensures any decisions made subsequent
to the initial planning stage will yield the intended outcomes. In the end, however, the intent of every trip fuel calculation
is to ensure, to the greatest practical extent, that the planned fuel burn to the destination is equal to or greater than the
actual fuel burn.
Note.— An example of an FCM programme used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 a) and/or Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.6.6 b) can be found in Appendix 5 to Chapter 5.
4.21 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — CONTINGENCY FUEL
4.21.1 Fundamentally, Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c) defines contingency fuel as the fuel required to compensate for
factors that cannot be foreseen during flight planning. Such factors include, but are not necessarily limited to, deviations
from flight plan that could influence the total fuel consumed en route to the destination such as:
a) deviations of an individual aeroplane from the expected fuel consumption data;
b) unforeseen meteorological conditions;
c) extended delays (on the ground or in the air); or
d) deviations from planned routings and/or cruising levels/altitudes.
4.21.2 From a safety risk management perspective, contingency fuel is used to mitigate the risks associated with
operational factors or hazards that cannot be planned, anticipated or controlled. The risk associated with the improper
calculation or complete consumption of contingency fuel is that of creating a diversion or low fuel state requiring to
declare it as MINIMUM FUEL or MAYDAY FUEL (4.3.7.2.2 and 4.3.7.2.3) that may subsequently impact ATM and other
aeroplanes. Using a prescriptive approach to compliance, the Authority prescribes the contingency fuel for the operator
to use in planning as described in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c).
4.21.3 Regardless of the regulatory approach to compliance, the importance of understanding contingency fuel
cannot be understated. As an example, the deterioration of an airframe/engine combination is a contingency that must
be accounted for if it is unmonitored (i.e., unknown). Conversely, if it is monitored (i.e., known) then it should be
accounted for in trip fuel. This basic example illustrates how the impact of a very specific operational concern can be
accounted for in different ways. It also clearly illustrates the difference between unforeseeable and foreseeable factors.
In this case, the difference is rooted in an operator’s capability to monitor and ultimately predict specific hull performance.
4.21.4 Contingency fuel can also be unprotected, which assumes that not all contingency fuel is planned to be
carried to the destination airport. In the fuel calculation, the consumed portion of the contingency fuel is included in the
trip fuel. Practically speaking this means the fuel for transport is not considered, and the contingency fuel remaining over
the destination can be reduced. The decision to “protect” or “unprotect” some or all of the planned contingency fuel can
be driven by numerous factors which include but are not limited to:
a) fuel preservation to account for unforeseen occurrences en route or over destination;
b) re-planning, re-dispatch, decision point planning requirements;
c) reduced contingency fuel (RCF) procedure requirements;
d) EDTO critical fuel scenario/diversion planning requirements unless additional fuel in accordance with
4.3.6.3 f) is already protected;
e) SCF planning requirements or outcomes;
f) a prediction that contingency fuel will be used during the en-route phase of flight and thus not required
over destination.
Note.— The hazards, safety risks and mitigation strategies associated with contingency fuel planning are
described in detail in Chapter 5 of this manual.
4.22 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — ALTERNATE FUEL
4.22.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 d) defines alternate fuel as the fuel required to account for several separate and
distinct operational scenarios as follows:
a) destination alternate aerodrome is required:
b) two destination alternate aerodromes are required;
c) flights operated without a destination alternate aerodrome;
d) aerodrome of intended landing is an isolated aerodrome.
4.22.2 In each case alternate fuel is intended to mitigate the safety risks associated with the unavailability of the
destination, first destination alternate or isolated aerodrome, as applicable. In order to practically conform to 4.3.6.3 d),
an operator would require system, process and procedures for destination alternate selection that are commensurate
with the complexity and scope of its operations. In determining alternate fuel, the aeroplane-specific or manufacturer
data specified in 4.3.6.2 a) and operating conditions of 4.3.6.2 b) would also be considered.
4.23 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — FINAL RESERVE FUEL
4.23.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 e) defines the final reserve fuel amounts for turbine and reciprocating engine
aeroplanes. This amount of fuel, calculated during pre-flight planning, is based on the estimated aeroplane mass on
arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome or the destination aerodrome (when no destination alternate aerodrome is
required). Additional criteria upon which this calculation is based include the time, speed and altitude conditions
specified under 4.3.6.3 e) 1) or 4.3.6.3 e) 2), as applicable.
4.23.2 In addition to the precise calculation of final reserve fuel for the purposes of pre-flight planning, Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.6.4 recommends that operators determine approximate final reserve fuel values for each aeroplane type and
variant in their fleet.
…
4.3.6.4 Recommendation.— Operators should determine one final reserve fuel value for each
aeroplane type and variant in their fleet rounded up to an easily recalled figure.
4.23.4 Conformance with this Recommended Practice would require an operator to determine conservative
(rounded up) final reserve fuel values for each type and variant of aeroplane used in operations. The intent of this
recommendation is two-fold, it provides:
a) a reference value to compare to pre-flight fuel planning computations and for the purposes of a “gross
error” check;
b) flight crews with easily referenced and recallable final reserve fuel figures to assist in in-flight fuel
monitoring and decision-making activities.
Note.— Guidance on the development and presentation of such values as well as the protection of final
reserve fuel is discussed in Chapter 6.
4.24 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — ADDITIONAL FUEL
4.24.1 Basic fuel planning represented by the sum of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 a) through e), is predicated on the
termination of a flight at the destination or destination alternate aerodrome. As such, it takes into account only foreseen
and unforeseen factors (excluding system failures) that could influence fuel consumption to the planned destination or
destination alternate aerodrome. Provision 4.3.6.3 f) 1) defines the “additional fuel” required to protect against the very
unlikely event of an engine failure or depressurization at the most critical point in the flight and presumes that the
majority of the fuel used in basic fuel planning will be available for use in proceeding to the en-route alternate aerodrome.
4.24.2 The sum of 4.3.6.3 b) + c) + d) + e) forms the equation used for comparison purposes with 4.3.6.3 f) to
determine if indeed the basic flight plan fuel is sufficient to account for the critical fuel scenario(s) or if “additional fuel” is
required. The purpose of this comparison is therefore to ensure that “additional fuel” is uplifted when the basic flight plan
fuel is insufficient, considering the most critical failure at the most critical point, to proceed to an en-route alternate
aerodrome, hold at 1 500 ft for 15 minutes, conduct an approach and land. It is important to note that whilst contingency
fuel may be used on the ground, this would not be the case if some or all contingency fuel is used in the equation to
determine the required additional fuel. In other words, if some or all contingency fuel is part of the equation to determine
the required additional fuel, it may not be used on the ground and must be available at take-off or the point of in-flight re-
planning as described in 4.3.6.5.
4.24.3 The following examples illustrate the circumstances that may or may not require “additional fuel” as
described in 4.3.6.3 f). In the first example (Figure 4-5), additional fuel is not required as basic fuel planning. The sum of
4.3.6.3 b) + c) + d) + e) results in sufficient fuel to account for the critical fuel scenario. Note that some of the
contingency fuel may be used on the ground or prior to reaching the point of in-flight re-planning.
4.24.4 In the second example (Figure 4-6), additional fuel is required as basic fuel planning. The sum of 4.3.6.3 b)
+ c) + d) + e) does not yield sufficient fuel to account for the critical fuel scenario. Note that all of the contingency fuel is
considered in the equation; therefore none of it may be used on the ground or prior to reaching the point of in-flight re-
planning.
4.24.5 It is important to note that although 4.3.6.3 f) 1) is applicable to all flights, 4.3.6.3 f) 2) is an additional
requirement that applies only to all aeroplanes engaged in EDTO. It further defines the fuel necessary to comply with the
EDTO critical fuel scenario as established by the State of the Operator. Such scenarios include additional controls to
ensure sufficient fuel is uplifted (to account for: engine failure alone or combined with a loss of pressurization, icing,
errors in wind forecasting, deterioration in cruise fuel burn performance, and APU use if applicable, 15 minutes hold,
approach and landing). These controls, described in Annex 6, Part I, Attachment D further ensure that for EDTO, the
sum of 4.3.6.3 f) 1) i) + ii) will be on board the aeroplane upon arrival at the en-route alternate aerodrome.
4.24.6 Additionally, the note to 4.3.6.3 f) 1) addresses the scenario of an event occurring precisely at the most
critical point of the route. If that were the case, the aeroplane may be in an emergency situation since the planned fuel
available to be on board at that point of the route may not guarantee that planned final reserve fuel would be available
upon landing.
4.25 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — DISCRETIONARY FUEL
4.25.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 g) defines discretionary fuel as an extra amount of fuel to be carried at the
discretion of the PIC. While contingency fuel is typically defined early during pre-flight fuel planning in order to account
for unforeseeable occurrences, discretionary fuel may be loaded later in the process by the PIC, Flight Operations
Officer (if applicable), or as directed by the operator.
4.25.2 The widespread use of discretionary fuel is more typical in cases where the operator (or regulator) simply
prescribes the minimum fuel required and then relies on the PIC to adjust that minimum as necessary based on actual
operational conditions. It is therefore, important to note that adding accuracy to fuel computations (e.g. statistical taxi
and/or contingency fuel) at the planning stage is likely to diminish the need for the uplift of discretionary fuel.
4.25.3 In any case, discretionary fuel is often used to ensure operational fuel load precision during scenarios that
are (historically) likely to increase fuel consumption to the destination aerodrome. Such scenarios are numerous;
however, drivers leading to increased (over plan) fuel consumption typically include (listed in order of probability):
a) forecast payload accuracy: higher than anticipated take-off gross weight;
b) ATC constraints: arrival demand exceeding arrival capacity at the destination aerodrome;
Chapter 4. Understanding
U Prescriptive Co
ompliance 4-31
Scenario 1: Destination Alternate
 4 engine aeropllane
 Non
N EDTO fligh ht En--route Alternate
e
 Heavy
H payload
 Good
G ERA avaiilable
 Distant
D destinattion alternate
Destina
ation
M
Most Critical Po
oint
Fuel Com putation

Depa
arture (A
Additional fuel not required)
Final Rese rve 15 min + approach

+ la
anding
Alternate
e
Contingen
ncy > Diversio
on FL 100 to
E
ERA
Trip
Trip too the most

Taxi criticcal point
Basic Calcula
ation Additional Fuel
(Requires morre fuel) Taxi
Calcculation
Fig
gure 4-5. Ad
dditional fuel n
not required
4-32 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Desttination Alterna
ate
Scenario 2:
 4 engine aeroplaane
 Non EDTO flightt
 Light Payload
 No good ERA av vailable
 Close-in destina
ation
alternate
Destina
ation
En-route
E Alternate
M
Most Critical Po
oint
Fuel Comp putation

Depa
arture (Additional fue
el required)
15 min
n + approach +
Additional F
Fuel
landing
Final Rese
erve
Alternate
e Diverssion FL 100 to
Contingen
ncy
< ERA
Trip
Trip to the most
criitical point
Taxi Taxi
Basic Calcul ation Additional Fuel

Ca
alculation
(Requirres more fuel)
Figure
F 4-6. Additional
A fue l required
c) weather impacts at destination or en-route:
1) destination aerodrome with variable arrival acceptance rates due to single runway operations
and/or inclement weather (e.g. risk of thunderstorm in the forecast, severe low-level turbulence,
freezing precipitation, runway contamination);
2) en-route adverse meteorological phenomena, resulting in lateral and/or vertical route and altitude
deviations (e.g. solid thunderstorms, volcanic ash, severe icing, dust storms, typhoons, cyclones,
and hurricanes).
4.25.4 When considering the uplift of discretionary fuel based on such known operational factors, a best practice
approach is to use a predefined table for determining fuel amounts based upon anticipated conditions. Any table figures
should be based on aeroplane flight manual (AFM) data, as well as actual operational performance data. Table 4-6 is
one example of how predefined fuel amounts, based on an aircraft manufacturer’s fuel flow rates, can be established by
an operator.
Table 4-6. Example discretionary fuel table
1 minute of additional fuel 1 minute of additional all-engine taxi

Aircraft type (kilograms) fuel (kilograms)
A319 40 kg/minute 15 kg/minute
B747 140 kg/minute 70 kg/minute
Note.— The following example figures are provided for the purpose of deriving the appropriate amount of fuel for anticipated
en-route weather hazards.
Lateral Deviation Fuel

A 50 NM deviation around adverse meteorological phenomena is an additional 5 minutes of fuel burn (for each area where a
deviation is necessary) or 200 kilograms (A319) as derived from the above table.
Altitude Deviation Fuel

A cruise 4 000 ft above or below the planned altitude is an additional 3 minutes of fuel burn per hour of affected flight time or
120 kilograms (A319) as derived from the above table. Generally this fuel is to accommodate for altitude flexibility when
turbulence of moderate or greater intensity is known or forecast to be encountered at planned cruise altitude(s).
4.26 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — MINIMUM FUEL FOR COMMENCEMENT OF FLIGHT

AND/OR TO CONTINUE FROM THE POINT OF IN-FLIGHT RE-PLANNING
4.3.6.5 A flight shall not commence unless the usable fuel on board meets the requirements in
4.3.6.3 a), b), c), d), e) and f) if required and shall not continue from the point of in-flight re-planning
unless the usable fuel on board meets the requirements in 4.3.6.3 b), c), d), e) and f) if required.
4.26.2 This Standard identifies the components of usable fuel that must be on board an aeroplane prior to
commencement of flight and/or prior to continuing a flight beyond the point of in-flight re-planning. Fundamentally, the
Standard provides the practical means for the safe completion of each flight in conformance with 4.3.6.1 and forms the
foundation for the protection of final reserve fuel in accordance with 4.3.7.2. It is important to note that practical
conformance with this Standard is dependent on a clear understanding of the computation, application and use of each
component in the usable fuel equation.
4.26.3 The primary intent of this Standard is to ensure that the fuel allocated during pre-flight planning and for the
purposes described in Standard 4.3.6.3 is accurately calculated, on board and usable at the appropriate time. It also
underscores the notion that the pre-flight calculation of usable fuel must take into account the data requirements and
operating conditions of 4.3.6.2 a) and b). Finally, the Standard marks the transition from planning to in-flight fuel
management. These critical activities require constant monitoring, re-analysis and adjustment in order to ensure
adequate safety margins can be maintained continually throughout the conduct of each flight in accordance with 4.3.6.1
and 4.3.7.2.
4.26.4 The first step in assuring sufficient fuel is on board to complete a planned flight safely is the accurate
computation of taxi fuel. To achieve this aim, the planned taxi fuel quantity (4.3.6.3 a)) takes into account foreseeable
taxi conditions and delays, and to the greatest practical extent, represents an amount of fuel predicted to equal or
exceed the actual fuel consumed before take-off. Additionally, operators should have the demonstrable capability, using
historical data collection and analysis tools, to adjust taxi times to ensure continuous improvement in future pre-flight taxi
fuel calculations. States should monitor this capability when conducting operator surveillance activities by reviewing data
collected from the operations manual, operational flight plan records, actual versus planned taxi time reports, flight
inspections, and, if available, flight data analysis reports.
4.26.5 It is important to note that every usable fuel calculation must take into account foreseen and unforeseen
deviations from the planned operation. Foreseeable deviations are those that result in increased fuel consumption based
on the data and operating conditions of 4.3.6.2 a) and b). Fuel to compensate for these factors (e.g. aeroplane fuel burn
rate, expected meteorological conditions, anticipated ATC restrictions and expected delays) are part of the trip fuel
calculation in accordance with 4.3.6.3 b) and are always required to be on board prior to take-off and/or prior to
continuing a flight beyond the point of in-flight re-planning. Operators, in determining whether or not they are in
conformance with 4.3.6.5, should not confuse the foreseen factors considered in accordance with 4.3.6.2 a) and b) with
the unforeseen factors specified in 4.3.6.3 c).
4.26.6 Contingency fuel calculated in accordance with 4.3.6.3 c) is intended to compensate for unforeseen
deviations in the planned operation that occur after a flight commences. The decision to use contingency fuel on the
ground or at any point in the flight, however, must be carefully weighed against the need to compensate for the many
unforeseeable occurrences that may be encountered once airborne. Other considerations include, for example, the
operational necessity to protect contingency fuel for in-flight re-planning purposes or the need to protect fuel for the
critical fuel scenario in accordance with 4.3.6.3 f).
4.26.7 Practically speaking, 4.3.6.5 allows for the consumption of contingency fuel once a flight has commenced
and prior to take-off so long as it will not be required to proceed beyond a point of in-flight re-planning and/or it is not
considered part of the additional fuel calculated in accordance with 4.3.6.3 f). It is important to note:
a) In the case of in-flight re-planning; a flight dispatched with an in-flight re-planning point (e.g. re-release
point, re-dispatch point, decision point) may not proceed beyond that point without the required
contingency fuel on board. Furthermore, if in-flight re-planning is conducted after the commencement
of flight, the usable fuel required on board to proceed beyond the new in-flight re-planning point must
meet the requirements in 4.3.6.3 b), c), d), e) and f), if required;
b) In the case of a flight that is dispatched with contingency fuel included in the basis for the computation
of required additional fuel, that portion of the contingency fuel is intended to be available at the critical
decision point(s) designated along a route segment that gives rise to the Critical Fuel Scenario (CFS).
4.26.8 In summary, practical conformance with this Standard begins, to the extent reasonably practicable, with
the use of realistic taxi times as basis for the calculation of taxi fuel as well as the uplift of discretionary fuel when
deemed necessary by the PIC. Occasionally, unpredicted prolonged taxi times may consume the planned taxi fuel and
burn into the contingency fuel leaving the flight crew with fewer options, once airborne, to compensate for any other
unforeseen factor(s). The PIC, in making the decision to continue a flight, must consider this and all other operational
factors that may affect his or her ability to safely complete the planned operation and protect final reserve fuel.
4.26.9 In the case of unforeseen taxi delays, for example, it may be possible to take off having burned into the
contingency fuel in order to avoid a very long delay. Conversely, a return to the gate for more fuel may be prudent if
continuing the flight means having to make a fuel stop prior to reaching the intended commercial destination. Whatever
decision is made should not impact the safety of the operation in conformance with 4.3.6.1 and 4.3.7.2. In order to
achieve this aim, operators should have clearly defined policy and procedures that address the minimum fuel required
for take-off and, if applicable, to continue beyond the point of in-flight re-planning.
Note 1.— This Standard is also applicable to contingency fuel derived using a performance-based method
per 4.3.6.6.
Note 2.— Examples of flight planning and in-flight re-planning processes currently in widespread use
around the world can be found in the appendices to Chapters 4 and 5 of this manual.
Note 3.— Guidance on the development of flight crew policy and procedure, including flight crew
responsibilities related to in-flight re-planning and fuel management can be found in Chapter 6 of this manual.
4.27 PRE-FLIGHT FUEL PLANNING — BASIC PRESCRIPTIVE CALCULATION EXAMPLE
Using the prescriptive approach to regulatory compliance, the State’s Authority may approve an operator’s fuel policy
and/or prescribe the fuel requirements for the operator to use in planning, including specific contingency, alternate and
reserve quantities to be carried. Figure 4-7 is an example of a basic fuel planning regulation for a twin turbine-engined
aeroplane engaged in EDTO with a destination alternate aerodrome. It uses the Annex 6, Part I, definitions for each
prescribed component in the calculation as follows:
4-36 Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (FPFMM)
BASIC EDTO FUEL POLICY

(Destination Alternate Required)
a) When calculating the fuel required, an operator shall, on the basis of the
fuel consumption data provided by the aircraft manufacturer include at
least taxi fuel + trip fuel (including fuel for foreseen contingencies) + Usable
mandated reserves. Fuel Required
Taxi
b) Mandated reserves would consist of:
1) Contingency fuel (5% of the planned trip fuel or of the fuel required
from the point of in-flight re-planning based on the consumption rate
Trip
used to plan the trip but not less than the amount required to fly for
five minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above the
destination aerodrome in standard conditions);
2) Destination alternate fuel; Contingency
3) Additional fuel if trip + contingency + alternate + final reserve fuel is Destination Alternate
insufficient to:
i) allow the aeroplane to descend as necessary and proceed to an Final Reserve

alternate aerodrome in the event of engine failure or loss of
Additional
pressurization, whichever requires the greater amount of fuel
(if required)
based on the assumption that such a failure occurs at the most
critical point along the route, fly for 15 minutes at holding speed
at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard
conditions and make an approach and landing; Discretionary
ii) allow an aeroplane engaged in EDTO to comply with the EDTO

critical fuel scenario as established by the State of the Operator;
4) Discretionary fuel:
5) Final reserve fuel.
Note.— Trip fuel calculations would include MEL/CDL fuel, as well as fuel for
known ATC, meteorology, and other known delays.
Figure 4-7. Example EDTO fuel policy

4.28 THE USE OF FUEL AFTER FLIGHT COMMENCEMENT
4.3.6.7 The use of fuel after flight commencement for purposes other than originally intended
during pre-flight planning shall require a re-analysis and, if applicable, adjustment of the planned
operation.
Note.— Guidance on procedures for in-flight fuel management including re-analysis, adjustment
and/or re-planning considerations when a flight begins to consume contingency fuel before take-off is
contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
4.28.2 The Annex 6, Part I, fuel planning Standards provide the framework for comprehensive, accurate and,
where possible, predictive pre-flight fuel planning. Such planning forms the foundation of an operator’s fuel policy but is
only one component of the balanced approach necessary to foster the culture of “continuous fuel state awareness and
proactive fuel management” described in detail in Chapter 6 of this manual.
4.28.3 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.7, closes the loop on pre-flight planning by addressing the need to find an
appropriate basis for the continuation of any operation that does not unfold as originally planned. It also reinforces the
notion that there must be a methodology to reconcile differences in the actual versus the planned operation in order to
ultimately ensure safe flight completion in accordance with 4.3.6.1 and 4.3.7.2.
4.28.4 It is important to acknowledge that there may be a point in any flight, after commencement, when the
minimum fuel required to complete the planned flight safely is no longer on board the aircraft. This reinforces the notion
that in order to safely complete an operation as planned, fuel should, to the greatest practical extent, be used as
allocated during pre-flight planning. Alternatively, if after flight commencement, insufficient fuel remains at any point to
operate a flight as planned, the plan must be revisited, analysed and adjusted, as necessary.
4.28.5 This is not to say that there will be a degradation in the safety performance of every flight that does not
operate exactly as planned. It does, however, speak to the operational reality that the SARPs address a broad spectrum
of potential operations, using aircraft with varying capabilities, operating in areas or on routes with varying levels of
infrastructure. The net result is that while some flights may demonstrate rather generous safety margins when it comes
to fuel planning, others may not. It is precisely this disparity that justifies the need for re-analysis and adjustment, when
in the judgment of the PIC (or PIC and FOO in shared systems of operational control), the plan is invalidated.
4.28.6 To achieve this aim there should be a trigger rooted in the operator’s fuel policy for a reconciliation of the
planned versus the actual operation at critical points in the flight (e.g. before take-off or to continue beyond the point of
in-flight re-planning). At its core, this process of reconciliation is part of the in-flight management activities as defined by
Annex 6 and explained in Chapter 6 of this manual. These activities must be clearly defined as there will be implications
if flight crews are confused about when to intervene as necessary to preclude taking a known and potentially
consequential fuel shortage into the air or deeper into the flight.
4.28.7 While the overriding intent of 4.3.6.7 is to ensure there is always sufficient fuel on board an aircraft to
continue a planned flight safely, it is important to note that the extent of any re-analysis and/or adjustment required be
commensurate with the scope and complexity of the planned operation. Equally important is the notion that any
foreseeable changes to the planned operation are typically accomplished in accordance with well-established in-flight
re-planning policy and procedures. What may be overlooked are those unforeseen occurrences that cause the partial or
complete depletion of contingency fuel and require the use of other fuels for purposes other than originally intended.
Note.— Refer to Chapter 6 of this manual for practical instructions regarding in-flight fuel management.
4.29 SUMMARY
4.29.1 The precise alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning specifications contained in Annex 6, Part I,
are intended for use in regulatory environments wherein the approach to safety is based primarily on strict regulatory
compliance. They do not take into account the operational capabilities of operators, technological capabilities of
aeroplanes or infrastructure, or other operational realities detailed in this manual. They do, however, provide a solid
foundation for safe flight operations as well as support the future development of sound SRM practices. They also
provide efficiencies and economic opportunities for States that have yet to develop robust fuel regulations and/or lack
the requisite knowledge, expertise and resources to implement performance-based alternatives.
4.29.2 The prescriptive SARPs provide the opportunity for operators to achieve efficiencies commensurate with
their operational experience and capabilities. Many operators can achieve incremental efficiencies by prescriptive
compliance with regulation without investing in advanced technologies, sophisticated data collection systems or the
other means necessary to support performance-based methods. Others, however, having made significant investments
in new methods and technologies should be permitted to derive greater efficiencies from the inherent flexibility of
performance-based compliance with regulation. In either case, a measured and incremental approach to the
implementation of any new policy is required in order for operators to continually achieve equivalent levels of safety that
are acceptable to the State.
Note 1.— Examples of national prescriptive flight planning regulations that conform to Annex 6, Part I,
4.3.6.1, can be found in Appendix 2 to this chapter.
Note 2.— Refer to Chapter 5 of this manual for guidance related to performance-based compliance with
alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations.
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLE OF A UNITED STATES OPSPEC FOR THE APPLICATION

OF PLANNING MINIMA
Note.— The following example of a United States OpSpec combines many of the elements used in
contemporary planning minima tables and is provided for illustrative purposes only. It is also important to note that
although not required to conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.3, the FAA also prescribes the use of planning minima as the
determinant for the nomination of a take-off alternate aerodrome. This is done for commonality with destination alternate
aerodrome selection requirements and/or to ensure a greater likelihood that the take-off alternate will be at or above
operating minima at the estimated time of use. It may also be done with the presumption that take-off alternates are
located at or near the maximum distances prescribed in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.2.
In cases where the take-off alternate aerodrome is relatively close to the departure aerodrome the use of
planning minima as the determinant for the selection of a take-off alternate may not be deemed necessary by a State’s
Authority. In these cases the margin prescribed in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3, should be deemed sufficient to ensure the
take-off alternate aerodrome will be at or above operating minima at the estimated time of use.
“OpSpec Paragraph C055, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums: 14 CFR Part 121)
a. The certificate holder is authorized to derive alternate airport weather minimums from Table 1 below.
b. Special limitations and provisions.
(1) In no case shall the certificate holder use an alternate airport weather minimum other than any
applicable minimum derived from this table.
(2) In determining alternate airport weather minimums, the certificate holder shall not use any published
IAP which specifies that alternate airport weather minimums are not authorized.
Note.— Paragraphs (3) and (4) are selectables.
(3) Credit for alternate minima based on CAT II or CAT III capability is predicated on authorization for
engine inoperative CAT III operations for the certificate holder, aircraft type, and qualification of
flightcrew for the respective CAT II or CAT III minima applicable to the alternate airport.
(4) Alternate Airport GPS wide area augmentation system (WAAS) Usage. The certificate holder may plan
to use any instrument approach authorized for use with GPS WAAS avionics at a required alternate if
the aircraft is equipped with such equipment certified in accordance with Technical Standard Order
(TSO) C145a/C146a (or later revision that meets or exceeds the accuracy of this TSO revision as
approved by the Administrator). This flight planning, however, must be based on flying the RNAV
(GPS) (or RNAV (GNSS) for foreign approaches) LNAV minima line, or the minima on a GPS
approach procedure or conventional approach procedure with “… or GPS” in the title. Additionally,
RNAV (GPS) (or RNAV (GNSS)) are based on a single navigational facility when determining the
approach facility configuration in Table 1 below. Upon arrival at an alternate, if the GPS WAAS
4-A1-1
navigation system indicates that LNAV/VNAV or LPV service is available, vertical guidance may be
used to complete the approach using the displayed level of service.
Note.— The final two rows of Table 1 are selectables.
Table 1. Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums
Approach Facility Configuration1 Ceiling2 Visibility3
For airports with at least one operational Add 400 ft to MDA(H) or Add 1 statute mile or 1 600 m
navigational facility providing a straight-in non- DA(H), as applicable. to the landing minimum.
precision approach procedure, or Category I
precision approach, or, when applicable, a
circling maneuver from an IAP.
For airports with at least two operational Add 200 ft to higher DA(H) or Add ½ sm or 800 m1 to the
navigational facilities, each providing a straight- MDA(H) of the two approaches higher authorized landing
in approach procedure to different suitable used. minimum of the two
runways. approaches used.
One usable authorized Category II ILS IAP. 300 feet ¾ statute mile (1200 m) or
RVR 4000 feet (1200 m).
One usable authorized Category III ILS IAP. 200 feet ½ statute mile (800 m) or RVR
1800 feet (550 m).
1. When determining the suitability of a runway, wind including gust must be forecast to be within operating limits,
including reduced visibility limits, and should be within the manufacturer’s maximum demonstrated crosswind.
2. All conditional forecast elements below the lowest applicable operating minima must be taken into account.
Additives are applied only to the height value (H) to determine the required ceiling.
3. When dispatching under the provisions of the MEL, those MEL limitations affecting instrument approach minima
must be considered in determining alternate minima.”
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLES OF PRESCRIPTIVE FLIGHT PLANNING PROCESSES

THAT CONFORM TO ANNEX 6, PART I, 4.3.6.1
1. INTRODUCTION
The proper definition of the flight planning methods used by an operator is a fundamental operational activity. If designed
and implemented properly, flight planning systems, policies, processes and procedures represent a basic systemic
defense against the hazards encountered in flight operations. In compliance-based regulatory environments, the State’s
Authority prescribes the fuel requirements for the operator to use in planning. This approach to compliance is explained
in detail in Chapter 4, and regulators have been using it since the end of the Second World War.
This appendix describes the reduced contingency fuel (RCF) and (B044) Re-dispatch/Re-release planning methods
which are representative of the national fuel regulation models described in Chapter 3 of this manual. These methods
and associated regulations were independently developed in Europe and the United States and address the minimum
fuel requirements of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6, to ensure an aeroplane carries sufficient fuel, including contingency and final
reserve fuel, to complete a planned flight safely.
These planning methods also address some of the most basic operational realities faced by operators and considered
by States during the development of national regulations. The limitations of such methods, however, also highlight a
need for additional flexibility in flight planning that may prompt States to grant variations based on an operator’s desired
efficiency gains and/or operational necessities. As such, they can also provide the operational context and basis for the
variations typically implemented in conjunction with the performance-based planning methods described in Chapter 5 of
this manual.
The following descriptions of RCF and (B044) Re-Dispatch/Re-Release planning methods are provided for guidance
purposes only as exact specifications may vary and should be developed by States and operators in conformance with
the requirements of the applicable Authority. Additionally, the following examples do not encompass every potential
planning method that may be approved by a State’s Authority or implemented by an operator. When considered in the
context of the applicable Annex 6, Part I, SARPs, however, these methods should provide a solid foundation for an
acceptable fuel policy.
2. REDUCED CONTINGENCY FUEL (RCF) PLANNING
RCF is a means of conformance with Annex 6, Part I, Standard 4.3.6.1, which requires an operator to establish a
process for the purpose of in-flight re-planning to ensure an aeroplane carries sufficient fuel (Figure 4-A2-1). RCF takes
advantage of in-flight re-planning and is based on the qualitative and quantitative assumption that the contingency fuel
allotted to the first part of the flight from departure to a decision point will not be used.
RCF is a combination of two standard OFPs. The term “standard OFP” refers to a flight plan in conformance with all fuel
prescriptive planning requirements in Annex 6, Part I. Until reaching the decision point, the flight uses a standard OFP
(No. 1). After the decision point it continues with standard flight plan No. 1 to the Destination 1 aerodrome (the optional
4-A2-1
refuel destination) or, if remaining fuel on board is sufficient, it re-plans using another standard OFP (No. 2) to
Destination 2 aerodrome (the intended commercial destination).
The longer the flight is and the closer the decision point is to the commercial intended destination (Destination 2), the
more contingency fuel can be reduced (if re-planning to Destination 2 remains possible). The following required fuel
calculation example illustrates how total fuel is derived to conform to the minimum fuel requirements of Annex 6, Part I,
4.3.6.
If an operator’s fuel policy includes pre-flight planning to a Destination 2 aerodrome (commercial destination) with an
RCF procedure using a decision point along the route and a Destination 1 aerodrome (optional refuel destination), the
amount of usable fuel on board for departure should be the greater of 1 or 2:
1. sum of:
a) taxi fuel;
b) trip fuel to the Destination 2 aerodrome (including fuel for foreseen contingencies), via the decision point;
c) contingency fuel equal to not less than 5 per cent of the estimated fuel consumption from the decision
point to the Destination 2 aerodrome, including any foreseen factors;
d) alternate fuel if required for Destination 2 in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 d);
e) final reserve fuel;
f) additional fuel, if required; and
g) discretionary fuel if required by the PIC.
or
2. sum of:
a) taxi fuel;
b) trip fuel to the Destination 1 aerodrome (including fuel for foreseen contingencies), via the decision point;
c) contingency fuel equal to not less than the amount calculated in accordance with Annex 6, Part I,
4.3.6.3 c) from departure aerodrome to the Destination 1 aerodrome;
d) alternate fuel, if required for Destination 1 in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 d);
3. RE-DISPATCH OR RE-RELEASE EN-ROUTE (B044) PLANNING
(B044) Re-dispatch planning is a means of conformance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6, which requires an operator to
establish a process for the purpose of in-flight re-planning to ensure an aeroplane carries sufficient fuel. Like RCF,
(B044) Re-dispatch takes advantage of in-flight re-planning and is based on a qualitative and quantitative determination
that more conservative or prescriptive planning methods result in the carriage of excess fuel on long-haul flights. Such
determinations are based on continual monitoring of fuel at destination for all flights to ensure, to the extent reasonably
practicable, that future flights carry sufficient fuel, including contingency fuel and final reserve fuel, to complete the
planned flight safely.
Appendix 2 to
t Chapter 4 4-A2-3
Destination
n2
(Co
ommercial Desstination)
Destin
nation 2 Alterna
ate
((If required)
Decisiion Point
(point of in-flight re-
plannning)
D
Destination 1
(Optiona l refuel destina
ation)
Destination 1 Alternate
(If required)
Depa
arture Aerodrom
me
Figure 4-A2
2-1. Reduced
d contingency
y fuel (RCF) pllanning
4-A2-4 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Plann
ned Commercial Destination
Planned Destination Altternate

(If required)
Re-disspatch/Re-
relea
ase Point
(point of
o in-flight re-
pla
anning)
Intermeddiate Destinatio
on
(Optional refuel destinatiion)
Interrmediate Destination Alternatte

(If required)
Dep
parture Aerodro
ome
Fig
gure 4-A2-2. Re-dispatch or re-release en-route (B04
44) planning
The re-dispatch flight proofile is very similar to RCF with some d ifferences in tterminology (F Figure 4-A2-2). Under
re-dispatch the
t flight crew plans to fly to the re-dispatc
ch point (RDP) under part 1 o of a two-part fllight plan. The RDP is
the point whhere the decisio
on is made to continue to the e planned com
mmercial destin nation or an inttermediate aerrodrome
based on a determination of sufficient fuuel remaining tot complete thee flight safely. The flight mayy proceed beyyond the
RDP to the planned destination provide ed all requirem
ments applicabble to original dispatch or flight release, in ncluding
meteorology y, terminal and
d en-route fac cilities, and fue uirements are met at the time of re-disp
el supply requ patch or
re-release.
The following required fuel calculation example illustrates how total fuel is derived to conform to the minimum fuel
requirements of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6. If an operator’s fuel policy includes pre-flight planning to a planned destination
aerodrome with a re-dispatch procedure using an RDP and an intermediate aerodrome (optional refuel destination), the
amount of usable fuel on board for departure should be the greater of 1 or 2:
1. sum of:
a) taxi fuel;
b) trip fuel to the planned destination (including fuel for foreseen contingencies);
c) contingency fuel to fly for a period of 10 per cent of the total time required to fly from the RDP to the
planned destination including any foreseen factors;
d) alternate fuel, if required for the planned destination;
f) additional fuel; and
or
2. sum of:
a) taxi fuel;
b) trip fuel to the intermediate aerodrome (including fuel for foreseen contingencies);
c) contingency fuel based on 10 per cent of the en-route flight time, including any foreseen factors, to the
intermediate aerodrome to which the flight is initially released;
d) alternate fuel, if required for the intermediate aerodrome;
The fuel savings realized under re-dispatch are the difference between the planned re-dispatch contingency fuel and the
contingency fuel for the total planned flight time from the departure aerodrome to the planned destination aerodrome
required under a standard flight plan.
4. CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL IN-FLIGHT RE-PLANNING METHODS
An operator using RCF or (B044) Re-dispatch planning could comply with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.1and 4.3.6.3 c) using
in-flight re-planning methods and associated methodologies for determining contingency fuel without the need for the
performance-based variations described in Chapter 5 of this manual subject to the following additional criteria:
• Contingency fuel is calculated in accordance with, is equivalent to, or exceeds the fuel required in
4.3.6.3 c).
• Fuel consumption monitoring. The operator should employ an FCM programme to monitor the
actual fuel consumption rates of the specific aeroplane utilizing in-flight re-planning.
• In-flight fuel management policy in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7. An operator should
implement an in-flight fuel policy that will support the practical management of in-flight re-planning
procedures. The policy should give the flight crew clear instructions, depending on the remaining fuel
on board, to divert to an intermediate destination (Destination 2) and refuel or to continue to the
planned commercial destination. Additionally, any such policy should give the flight crew specific
instructions regarding the best course of action when contingency fuel is completely consumed before
reaching the planned commercial destination.
5. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS FOR (B044) RE-DISPATCH PLANNING
A flight should be re-planned using re-dispatch subject to the presence of the following criteria in addition to those
prescribed in 4:
• Separate operational analyses (which include alternate aerodromes, the fuel required, the routes to be
flown, and the estimated times en route) are prepared for the route of flight from the departure
aerodrome to the destination aerodrome specified in the original dispatch or flight release, and for the
route(s) of flight from the departure aerodrome to the destination aerodrome(s) specified in the
planned re-dispatch.
• The operational analyses specified above are provided to both the PIC, flight operations officer and/or
flight follower, as applicable.
• Any planned re-dispatch or re-release point is specified in the original dispatch or flight release and in
the required operational analyses.
• Any re-dispatch or re-release point should be a position common to the routes specified by the
operational analyses.
• When designating destination and alternate aerodromes in the planned re-dispatch or re-release, the
flight operations officer or flight follower, as applicable, will provide to the PIC all available current
reports or information on aerodrome conditions and irregularities of navigation facilities that may affect
the safety of the flight.
• Before beginning a flight, the flight operations officer or flight follower, as applicable, will provide the
PIC with all available meteorological reports and forecasts of meteorological phenomena that may
affect the safety of flight, including adverse meteorological phenomena, such as clear air turbulence,
thunderstorms, and low altitude wind shear, for each route to be flown and each aerodrome to be
used.
• In operations that do not utilize a flight operations officer, before beginning a flight, each PIC will
obtain all available current reports or information on aerodrome conditions and irregularities of
navigation facilities that may affect the safety of the flight.
• Within two hours of the flight's arrival at any designated re-dispatch or re-release point, and prior to
executing the re-dispatch or re-release, the PIC is provided with the additional information concerning
meteorological conditions, ground facilities, and services at the destination and alternate aerodromes
specified in the re-dispatch or re-release. If the route of flight to be used to the new destination
aerodrome is different from the planned route, the new route of flight should be specified.
• Upon reaching any re-dispatch or re-release point specified in a dispatch or release, the certificate
holder should operate the flight as dispatched or released unless the PIC receives and explicitly
accepts the re-dispatch or re-release to the new destination aerodrome. The operator should not
authorize the flight to proceed to a new destination aerodrome unless the PIC of that flight forwards a
message to the company through an aeronautical communications service specifically stating
concurrence with the re-dispatch or re-release.
6. PROCESS AND CONTROLS
Operators who wish to conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.1 and 4.3.6.3 c) should demonstrate the following processes
and controls:
• Actions at the Re-dispatch/Re-release/Re-planning Point. Process to ensure that when

approaching the decision point or re-dispatch point, meteorology at the planned commercial
destination and associated alternate, if required, is assessed. In-flight re-planning to the planned
commercial destination is permitted only if the conditions of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3, or those accepted
by the applicable CAAs are fulfilled.
7. DEMONSTRABLE ABILITY TO REPORT, MEASURE

AND ANALYSE ESSENTIAL DATA
Operators that cannot conform with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.1 and 4.3.6.3 c) using in-flight re-planning methods without
associated performance-based methodologies for determining contingency fuel should demonstrate the ability to report,
measure and analyse the essential data for the identification, analysis and mitigation of potential safety risks that could
affect the outcome of flights in accordance with Chapter 5 of this manual.
______________________
Chapter 5
PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.1.1 This chapter supports the Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.6.6 SARPs with operationally specific guidance
material. The guidance provides assistance to States, CAAs and operators in their self-examination to determine if they
are prepared to supplement prescriptive-compliance to regulation with a performance-based component. This process of
examination is the first of many steps in the transition from a purely compliance-based approach to an approach that
includes the performance-based components necessary to support proactive and continuous safety risk management.
This chapter also outlines core criteria for “capable operators” that address the organizational, operational, SRM and
oversight components necessary to implement and support performance-based regulations. These attributes, among
others, represent prerequisites for performance-based compliance that should be in place and evaluated by CAAs prior
to the approval of any operational variation.
5.1.2 Chapter 5 is supported by appendices that contain additional details related to the implementation or
approval of specific operational variations. Appendices 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 to Chapter 5, in particular, contain additional
criteria requirements, controls and mitigation measures related to operational variations in take-off alternate aerodrome
selection, destination alternate aerodrome selection and contingency fuel calculations. Appendix 3 to Chapter 5 contains
additional operational context in the form of the flight planning methods that are dependent on the advanced use of
alternate aerodromes. Such methods may require authorities to consider operational variations from the prescriptive
criteria. Finally, Appendix 7 to Chapter 5 contains a performance-based planning job-aid designed for use by an
approving Authority.
5.2 UNDERSTANDING PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE
5.2.1 ICAO’s Safety Management Manual (SMM) (Doc 9859), comprehensively describes a safety paradigm
wherein States and operators, using a performance-based approach to safety, can proactively manage the safety risks
that are the by-product of flight operations. Such States and operators, rather than relying solely on prescriptive
compliance with regulations, continuously monitor and manage the real-time performance of the many operational
systems or processes that influence overall levels of organizational and operational (tactical) safety risk. Annex 6, Part I,
also acknowledges this evolution by recognizing that operational variations from the prescriptive SARPs on alternate
aerodrome selection and fuel planning may be approved by an Authority based on an individual operator’s demonstrable
capability to monitor, measure and maintain levels of safety performance related to specified alert and targets levels.
5.2.2 Nowhere is this paradigm more evident than within the management systems of many commercial air
carriers that have decades of operational experience. Their internal systems and process management methods have
evolved over time and out of operational necessity. Methods related to Quality Assurance (QA), International Standards
(ISO), Quality Management Systems (QMS), Safety Risk Management (SRM), and most recently, Safety Management
Systems (SMS) are now incorporated into what are typically very sophisticated, functional and effective corporate
systems.
5.2.3 Operational SMS and the SRM process, in particular, are such that they are now imbedded in many
existing organizational systems and subsystems. This in turn required the formal SMS attributes of responsibility,
5-1
authority, process, procedures, controls, process measures, and interfaces to be identified in existing operator systems.
Other organizational components, elements and processes were also identified for the purpose of analysis and
continuous improvement. Finally, existing system design and performance was examined and adjusted to place
emphasis on the real-time management of safety risks. This organizational evolution is representative of the progression
necessary to support the performance-based approach to regulatory compliance that underlies the development and
implementation of operational variations.
5.2.4 One of the prerequisites to implementing performance-based regulation is to define the performance
measurement criteria to be developed in consultation with both the regulator and an operator. Practically speaking, this
means regulators and operators work together to identify clearly the safety indicators that will track the performance of a
particular process. One example of an appropriate safety indicator could be the number of occurrences of reserve fuel
planning miscalculation. Recording this occurrence rate would then be used to measure nonconformance or deviations
from prescribed requirements. These data are collected regularly so as to record the occurrences over a given period of
time. It is important to note that occurrences should be tracked on an occurrence rate trend monitoring basis rather than
absolute numbers.
5.2.5 Once substantial data are collected, the baseline safety performance for that particular indicator can be
established and set as a reference for future performance. Understanding this concept is critical in order to evaluate
whether or not an “equivalent” or “improved” level of safety performance is achieved in operations. It is also important to
note that the reference level or baseline performance is continually updated based on past data for the indicator being
considered.
5.2.6 The next step involves setting “alert” and “target” levels of safety performance as benchmarks relative to
the baseline performance for a given indicator. An alert level is the line of demarcation between an unacceptable and an
acceptable occurrence rate. In other words, it is the breach level for the safety indicator defined.
5.2.7 As an example, an alert could be triggered if the reserve fuel planning miscalculation rate exceeds three
consecutive rate points above the [Mean + 1 SD] alert line on the Safety Performance Indicator (SPI) trend chart
(Doc 9859, Appendix 6 to Chapter 4, Table 4-A4-5 “Alert level trigger”). The target level, in contrast, serves as the
desired level of improvement for that indicator. The operator would then aim to achieve this improved target level, for
example, by reducing the mean occurrence rate (at the end of a new monitoring period) by a certain percentage (e.g.
10 per cent) below the recent or original baseline mean rate (Doc 9859, Appendix 6 to Chapter 4, Table 4-A4-5, “Target
Achievement”).
5.2.8 For certain non-data-based monitoring SPIs, it is possible that alert and target levels may be qualitative in
nature. This is provided that such SPIs are indeed relevant for such a specific FPFM process performance monitoring
and measurement purpose in the first place. It is important to remember, however, that the SPIs and alert/target levels
need to be acceptable to the Authority and are typically defined by each operator within the context of its operational
expectations and safety performance history.
5.2.9 With all the performance tracking parameters set, the operator can measure and monitor, over a given
period of time, the performance results of each defined safety indicator. It is important to note that the baseline
performance may change during the period of performance being measured. Practically speaking, this means that if
safety performance of an SPI was maintained or improved, post implementation of a performance-based component,
then the set performance criteria are successful. Where, however, there is a degradation of performance, post
implementation (alert level triggered), remedial action would need to be taken in order to recalibrate either the
performance criteria or verify causal factors within the process itself. This would also imply investigating the
corresponding data that caused the alert level, identifying hazards and setting into motion the risk mitigation process.
5.2.10 For further details on how to calculate standard deviation, deriving baseline performances and setting alert/
target levels, refer to Doc 9859, Appendices 4 and 6 to Chapter 4.
Chapter 5. Performance-based Compliance 5-3
Equivalent Level of Safety
5.2.11 The basis upon which Annex 6, Part I, allows the State of the Operator to approve operational variations
using performance-based methods is contingent upon the operator meeting an “equivalent level of safety” to the
prescriptive approach. Practically speaking, this means any operational variation described in this manual is contingent
on the assumption that the safety performance of an applicable operational activity will not be degraded by the use of
performance-based methods or the introduction of performance-based elements. In other words, the outcomes
(expressed in terms of safety performance using safety indicators) of an operational activity achieved after the
introduction of a performance-based component should be “equivalent to” or exceed the outcomes achieved using a
purely prescriptive approach.
5.2.12 To determine if such equivalence has indeed been achieved, the safety performance of operational
activities before and after the application of an operational variation should be carefully compared. For example, the
average incident rate of alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning failures or non-conformities, as defined by the
State and the operator, should not increase after the introduction of performance-based components. This comparison
assures that post-implementation performance meets or exceeds the baseline performance achieved using the purely
prescriptive approach to compliance with regulation.
5.2.13 Conversely, where such comparisons indicate that safety performance has degraded, the operator should
work with the Authority to determine root causes and take whatever actions are necessary to restore safety performance
relative to specified targets. Such actions may include modification of one or more performance-based components or,
where necessary, a return to prescriptive compliance. Details of how appropriate safety indicators can be defined and
safety performance can be measured are addressed further in 5.5 of this chapter.
5.2.14 This performance-based approach is results-oriented and is designed to ensure a high probability of
specific (desirable) outcomes. These outcomes, proactively managed and achieved by the operator, are then compared
to standards of performance as defined by the State and the operator. As these positive performance measurement
outcomes (i.e. consecutively no target levels have been breached and desired target improvements are regularly met)
are data driven, they form a sound basis upon which an operator can justify the subsequent adjustments to prescriptive
requirements.
The role of prescriptive regulations in a performance driven environment
5.2.15 In the early days of safety management, aviation was loosely regulated and characterized by
underdeveloped technology, lack of appropriate infrastructure, limited oversight and an insufficient understanding of
inherent hazards. As aviation matured, however, technological improvements and the proliferation of infrastructure
quickly outpaced the ability of prescriptive regulations to cope effectively with such advances. This led to a growing
realization within the aviation community that prescriptive regulations may not address every conceivable operational
scenario in a system as open and dynamic as aviation.
5.2.16 This realization coupled with the ever-increasing complexity of airline operations is driving CAAs and
operators to complement conventional (compliance-based) regulatory approaches to safety with a contemporary
(performance-based) component. As previously mentioned, this contemporary approach to regulatory compliance seeks
to achieve a realistic implementation of operational practices through process control and continual SRM. It does not
minimize the need, however, for compliance-based components that ensure adherence to minimum standards and the
development of the sound safety practices that remain fundamental to modern SRM.
5.2.17 While prescriptive regulations continue to offer advantages to States and operators alike, they do not
typically take into account the capabilities of a particular operator, modern flight planning methods, new technologies,
available infrastructure and the many other factors that influence operational efficiency and safety. Fundamentally,
however, prescriptive regulations related to alternate aerodrome selection or fuel planning will continue to form the
baseline against which their performance-based counterparts are measured.
State Safety Programmes (SSP) and Safety Management Systems (SMS)
5.2.18 It is important to note that SSP and SMS can provide the framework for the implementation of
performance-based methods that support operational variations from some Standards and Recommended Practices.
Additionally, the implementation of performance-based methods and the resultant levels of safety performance achieved
or desired should not conflict with the overall safety management objectives of an SSP and SMS, if present.
5.2.19 SSP and SMS are the systemic means used to manage safety within States and organizations. A State’s
safety oversight function becomes part of an SSP and is a fundamental safety assurance component. In the absence of
an SSP, the objectives of the State’s safety oversight function are typically satisfied through administrative controls
(inspections, audits and surveys) regularly carried out by CAAs and may not necessarily constitute safety risk controls.
An SSP, however, is typically necessary to turn the outcomes of safety oversight into safety risk controls.
5.2.20 For example, a State’s safety oversight function may at present verify that a State has a system of
regulations, but neither requires a safety risk analysis to produce such regulations nor monitors the effectiveness of
regulations as safety risk controls. The SSP, on the other hand, would consider regulations as safety risk controls and
require, through its SRM component, that the process of rulemaking be done using principles of SRM. This is
accomplished by identifying hazards, assessing the safety risks and developing regulations that provide acceptable
mitigation and control of the hazards.
5.2.21 An SMS, on the other hand, can be likened to a toolbox that contains the tools an operator needs in order
to control the safety risks it faces during operations. It is important to acknowledge that an SMS is simply a toolbox in
which the actual tools employed to conduct the two basic SRM processes (hazard identification and risk management)
are contained and protected. Additionally, an SMS ensures a toolbox that is appropriate in size and complexity for the
operator.
5.2.22 The relationship between the SSP and the SMS can be expressed as follows: States are responsible for
developing and establishing an SSP, and operators are responsible for developing and establishing an SMS. States are
responsible, as part of the activities of their SSP, to accept and oversee the development, implementation and
operational performance of the operator’s SMS.
5.2.23 This interrelationship between the oversight activities of a State and the SRM activities of an operator may
begin at a tactical level and prior to the full deployment of an SSP and SMS. For example, the deployment of
performance-based variations to prescriptive regulations may be contingent on assurances that mitigation strategies
associated with the safety risks, which are the result of a specific operational activity, achieve target levels of safety
performance. These assurances can be achieved typically through complementary State and operator monitoring
processes that are the precursors to SSP and SMS.
The challenges of performance-based compliance
5.2.24 Performance‐based regulatory approaches and performance‐based compliance to regulations pose a

different set of challenges to Authorities and operators. An Authority using a performance-based approach, for example,
cannot simply monitor operator compliance with prescribed requirements but must identify acceptable performance
outcomes and validate the means by which such outcomes are achieved. Conversely, an operator using performance-
based compliance cannot simply adhere to prescribed limitations in order to ensure the safe execution of an operational
activity.
5.2.25 This shift in the approach for managing safety requires the application of very specific knowledge, skills
and resources to ensure operational outcomes continue to meet or exceed those that would result from a purely
prescriptive approach. More importantly, from the regulator’s perspective, it requires thorough monitoring, interaction
and negotiation with each operator to ensure a continuous and complete assessment of its performance-based
processes.
Chapter 5. Performance--based Complia
ance 5-5
5.2.26 In complianc ce-based regu ulatory environ nments, autho orities can re ely solely on prescriptive ooperator
compliance with regulation ns that focus on “what” must be accomplish hed as well as “how” it is to be accomplishhed. The
rationale is that
t as long ass prescribed lim
mits are not ex xceeded, an o perational activvity can be considered safe. On the
other hand, in a performa ance-based reg gulatory enviro onment, authorrities can focu us on “what” mmust be accommplished
while allowinng for some operational
o flex
xibility as to “h how” it is to bee accomplishe ed. Regardlesss of the metho
od of an
operator’s compliance, the e outcomes of its compliance e should be su ubstantially sim
milar and demonstrate equivvalent or
enhanced le evels of safety performance.
p Figure
F 5-1 illusttrates the evollution of regula
atory compliancce.
Prescriptiv
ve approach to
o compliance
Mature auth
hority and ope
erator system
ms
Authority prrescribes
"what" mustt be
accomplishe ed as well as Performan
nce-based com
mponent
"how" it mus st be Robust overrsight and
accomplishe ed; performance e monitoring
capability; Baseline saafety performannce determined
d by
Operators strictly
s apply
the prescrip
ptive regulation
n;
and adhere to regulations;; Mature systems,
processes, controls,
c data Authority prrescribes "whaat" must be
Authority monitors collection an
nd data accomplish hed and allows for latititude ass to
operator compliance with analysis; "how" it is tto be accomplisshed;
regulation.
Safety Risk Management at
a Operators sselect safety pe
erformance
onal level;
the operatio indicators in
n agreement w
with Authority;
Safety assurance and Operators iidentify, monito

or, measure an
nd
continuous improvement.
i mitigate saffety risks;
Operators wwork to achieve

e target levels of
safety perfo
ormance;
Operator annd Authority m

monitor operatorr
safety perfo
ormance.
Figure 5-1.
5 The evolution of regullatory complia
ance
5.2.27 For example, the end result or outcome of a regulation related to the nomination of an alternate aerodrome
is to assure, to the extent reasonably practicable, that an appropriate runway will be available to an aeroplane when
needed. It is this outcome that must be achieved using either the prescriptive or performance-based approach to
regulation. Performance-based compliance, however, additionally aims to continually reduce safety risks and achieve
continuous improvement in the safety performance related to this activity. In other words, it provides a process-based
framework designed to continuously drive safety risks to lower levels. Such reductions are made possible by operator
processes that employ multilayered defensive strategies to manage safety risks proactively and continuously. Such
processes are typically data-driven, ongoing and adaptable. They systemically identify hazards and trigger the
development, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of safety risk controls and/or mitigation measures.
5.2.28 One of the most difficult issues facing a State wishing to implement performance-based regulations or
approving performance-based compliance with existing regulations is the practical definition of safety indicators and
setting associated alert and target levels of safety performance in flight operations. When setting safety indicators,
operators should consider, for example, which aspects are useful based on the nature of the risks in their activity
together with the nature of their operations.
5.2.29 The safety indicators need to be representative in that they objectively reflect the strengths and
weaknesses of the operational activity concerned. Secondly, they need to be very specific to the activity that they are
going to measure in order to show the progress or trend. The indicators also need to represent objective data-based
performance criteria.
5.2.30 This is also the case when setting alert and target levels. If the operator does not set realistic alert levels,
the performance outcomes would not accurately reflect the risks or hazards within the process. Similarly, if the set target
levels do not correspond to realistic goals, then the outcomes would not show any improvement in process performance.
5.2.31 Under the performance-based approach, any specific operational variations from prescriptive regulations
will allow for greater flexibility so long as the safety performance is not degraded. These specific operational variations
are based on the results of a safety risk assessment completed in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 or 4.3.6.6, as
applicable. Each determination that an operator will be able to reach a target level, or not exceed alert levels, of safety
performance necessary to ensure safety, is dependent on numerous operational factors. Such factors should be
carefully considered by the Authority and each individual operator within a context that considers the availability of
resources to address any deficiencies in safety performance.
5.2.32 Another challenge is managing the shift in safety oversight from a regulatory perspective. Since the safety
performance of any operational variation is typically established separately between an applicable Authority and the
operators it oversees, Authorities should work closely with operators to develop safety indicators and alerts and targets
that address the specific hazards to be faced in operations. This interactive relationship then fosters the development of
performance-based oversight methods that complement performance-based compliance which should be clearly
understood by both the operator and the Authority in order for effective SRM to occur.
5.2.33 Achieving consensus on suitable safety indicators and alert and target levels agreeable to the State, the
Authority and the operator can be a challenge. The working relationship necessary to achieve such agreement, however,
is the hallmark of contemporary SRM. It also represents one of the many challenges to be overcome by CAAs and
operators wishing to transition from a purely prescriptive and reactive regulatory culture to the proactive and predictive
culture required to sustain performance-based approaches.
5.3 ANNEX 6, PART I, PROVISIONS FOR VARIATIONS IN ALTERNATE AERODROME SELECTION

AND FUEL PLANNING
5.3.1 Operational variations in alternate aerodrome selection are applicable to:
a) take-off alternate aerodromes (4.3.4.1);
b) en-route alternate aerodromes (4.3.4.2); and
c) destination alternate aerodromes (4.3.4.3).
4.3.4.4 Notwithstanding the provisions in 4.3.4.1, 4.3.4.2, and 4.3.4.3; the State of the Operator
may, based on the results of a specific safety risk assessment conducted by the operator which
demonstrates how an equivalent level of safety will be maintained, approve operational variations to
alternate aerodrome selection criteria. The specific safety risk assessment shall include at least the:
a) capabilities of the operator;
b) overall capability of the aeroplane and its systems;
c) available aerodrome technologies, capabilities and infrastructure;
d) quality and reliability of meteorological information;
e) identified hazards and safety risks associated with each alternate aerodrome variation; and
f) specific mitigation measures.
Note.— Guidance on performing a safety risk assessment and on determining variations,

including examples of variations, are contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual
(Doc 9976) and the Safety Management Manual (SMM) (Doc 9859).
5.3.3 The intent of this Standard is to provide the framework for performance-based compliance with Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.4.1, 4.3.4.2, and 4.3.4.3, which contain the prescriptive criteria for the selection of alternate aerodromes. The
State of the Operator may, for certain circumstances, approve variations based on this Standard. Such approvals are
possible as long as an equivalent level of safety can be maintained. This equivalence is based on a comparison of the
outcome(s) to be achieved in operations using either the prescriptive regulation or a performance-based approach to
compliance with the same regulations based on the additional criteria contained in Annex 6, Part I, SARPs.
5.3.4 In the case of alternate aerodrome SARPs, the outcome to be achieved in operations is a reasonable
certainty that an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made will be available at the estimated time of use. As such,
the result of either means of compliance is a substantially similar or greater certainty that such an aerodrome will be
available when needed. Additionally, and in order to fully conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4, an operator’s safety case in
support of an operational variation would at a minimum address the criteria of 4.3.4.4 a) through f) which are addressed
in this manual and related appendices as outlined in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1.
Factors to be considered during safety risk assessment activities

related to alternate aerodrome selection Doc 9976 References
• 4.3.4.4 a) capabilities of the operator; • Chapter 5 Section 5.3 — Details the

prerequisites for performance–based
• 4.3.4.4 b) overall capability of the aeroplane and its systems; compliance with regulations including
operator, aeroplane, aerodrome and
• 4.3.4.4 c) available aerodrome technologies, capabilities and meteorological (reporting) capabilities.
infrastructure;
• 4.3.4.4 d) quality and reliability of meteorological information.
• Chapter 5 Sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6

describe the operational Safety Risk
Management processes and safety
• 4.3.4.4 e) identified hazards and safety risks associated with assurance by operator and by State;
each alternate aerodrome variation; and
• Chapter 5 Appendices 1 and 2 outline
• 4.3.4.4 f) specific mitigation measures. additional operator capabilities, criteria
requirements and mitigation measures
related to specific operational variations
from prescriptive alternate aerodrome
selection criteria.
* Note.— Appendices 1 and 2 to Chapter 5 contain additional criteria requirements, controls and mitigation measures
related to operational variations in take-off alternate aerodrome selection and destination alternate selection.
5.3.5 While it is beyond the scope of this manual to address every potential variation in alternate aerodrome
selection, many examples of variations, within the scope of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3, are provided for illustrative purposes
in the appendices to this chapter. The examples contained in the appendices should be used in conjunction with the
balance of this chapter and other suitable references to form the basis for the development or validation of similar
operational variations. In short, the specifications of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 and Appendices 1 and 2 to this chapter
recognize the potential for operational variations from prescriptive take-off, en-route and destination alternate aerodrome
selection criteria that include but are not limited to:
a) take-off alternate aerodrome selection criteria based on the use of a fixed speed schedule rather than
derived from the actual take-off mass of the aeroplane;
b) no-destination alternate operations to aerodromes without two separate runways or without a

nominated instrument approach procedure;
c) no-destination alternate operations to destinations with forecast to below VMC;
d) no-destination alternate operations to destinations with CAT III or CAT II capability;
e) no-destination alternate operations associated with a State-approved OpSpec;
f) no-destination alternate operations for operators that use Decision Point (DP) planning;
g) single-destination alternate operations to aerodromes (when, for the destination aerodrome,

meteorological conditions at the estimated time of use will be below the operator's established
operating minima or no meteorological information is available); and
h) destination alternate operations associated with an applicable State-approved exemption.
5.3.6 Operational variations in fuel planning are applicable to:
a) taxi fuel (4.3.6.3 a));
b) trip fuel (4.3.6.3 b));
c) contingency fuel (4.3.6.3 c));
d) destination alternate fuel (4.3.6.3 d)); and
e) additional fuel (4.3.6.3 f)).
4.3.6.6 Notwithstanding the provisions in 4.3.6.3 a), b), c), d), and f); the State of the Operator
may, based on the results of a specific safety risk assessment conducted by the operator which
demonstrates how an equivalent level of safety will be maintained, approve variations to the pre-flight
fuel calculation of taxi fuel, trip fuel, contingency fuel, destination alternate fuel, and additional fuel.
The specific safety risk assessment shall include at least the:
a) flight fuel calculations;
b) capabilities of the operator to include:
i) a data-driven method that includes a fuel consumption monitoring programme; and/or
ii) the advanced use of alternate aerodromes; and
c) specific mitigation measures.
Note.— Guidance for the specific safety risk assessment, fuel consumption monitoring
programmes and the advanced use of alternate aerodromes is contained in the Flight Planning and
Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
5.3.8 The intent of this Standard is to provide the framework for performance-based compliance with Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.6.3 a), b), c), d), and f), which contain the prescriptive criteria for the pre-flight fuel calculation of taxi fuel, trip
fuel, contingency fuel, destination alternate fuel, and additional fuel as long as an equivalent level of safety can be
maintained. The State of the Operator may, for certain circumstances, approve variations based on this Standard. As
with alternate aerodrome selection, this equivalence is based on a comparison of the outcome(s) to be achieved in
operations using either the prescriptive regulation or a performance-based approach to compliance with the same
regulations based on the additional criteria contained in Annex 6, Part I, SARPs.
5.3.9 In the case of required fuel supply SARPs, the outcome to be achieved in operations is: a reasonable
certainty that the pre-flight calculation of usable fuel required will provide sufficient fuel to complete the planned flight
safely and allow for deviations from the planned operation. Thereby either means of compliance should result in a
substantially similar or greater certainty that sufficient fuel will be uplifted for each planned flight. Additionally, and in
order to fully conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, the operator’s safety case in support of an operational variation, would
at a minimum address the criteria in 4.3.6.6 a) through c) which are addressed in this manual and related appendices as
outlined in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2.
Factors to be considered during safety risk assessment activities

related to fuel planning Doc 9976 References
• 4.3.4.6.6 a) flight fuel calculations; • Chapter 4, 4.16 through 4.27;
• Appendix 2 to Chapter 4, as applicable;
• Appendices 3 and 4 to Chapter 5, as

applicable.*
• 4.3.4.6.6 b) capabilities of the operator to include: • Chapter 5, 5.4 — Details the prerequisites
for implementing performance–based
compliance by an operator that includes its
organizational and operational capabilities.
i) a data-driven method that includes a fuel consumption • Appendices 4 and 5 to Chapter 5, as

monitoring programme; and/or applicable.*
ii) the advanced use of alternate aerodromes; and • Appendix 2 to Chapter 4, as applicable;
• Appendices 3 and 4 to Chapter 5, as

applicable.*
• 4.3.4.6.6 c) specific mitigation measures. • Chapter 5, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 describe the
operational Safety Risk Management
processes and safety assurance by
operator and by State;
• Appendices to Chapter 5*.
* Note.— Appendix 2 to Chapter 4 contains examples of flight planning processes that conform to Annex 6, Part I,
4.3.6.1. Appendix 2 to Chapter 5 contains additional criteria requirements, controls and mitigation measures related
to operational variations in take-off alternate aerodrome selection and destination alternate selection. Appendices 3
and 5 to Chapter 5 contain examples of flight planning processes that are dependent on the advanced use of
alternate aerodromes and an FCM programme, respectively.
5.3.10 While it is beyond the scope of this manual to address every potential variation in fuel planning, many
examples of variations and related programmes within the scope of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, are provided in appendices
to this chapter. The examples in the appendices should be used in conjunction with the balance of this chapter and other
suitable references to support the development or validation of performance-based fuel planning. In short, the
specifications of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, recognize the potential for variations from prescriptive fuel planning criteria that
include but are not limited to those related to the application and use of:
a) Decision Point (DP) planning;
b) Pre-determined Point (PDP) planning;
c) 3% En-route Alternate (ERA) contingency fuel planning;
d) Statistical Contingency Fuel (SCF) planning;
e) Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations Reserve (B043) fuel planning;
f) Flag and Supplemental Operations (B0343) reserve fuel.
5.4 CORE CRITERIA FOR CAPABLE OPERATORS
5.4.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.6.6 both require the “capabilities of the operator” to be considered during
safety risk assessment activities associated with operational variations. Practically speaking this means that operators
must assess whether or not they possess the requisite knowledge, skills and resources to implement and oversee the
systems and processes required to support performance-based compliance. To assist in these aims, the following
criteria that typify capable operators are provided and should be considered within the context of a variation
implementation by an operator and approval process by Authorities.
5.4.2 Figure 5-2 illustrates the philosophy that underlies how information is presented in the balance of this
chapter and related appendices as well as the framework necessary to support the development and deployment of
operational variations. It is important to note, however, that the information presented in this chapter should be
considered only within the context of regulatory environments where the management of safety is based upon regulatory
compliance complemented by a performance-based component that can assess the actual performance of an operator’s
activities critical to safety against existing organizational controls. Only through assurance of effective implementation of
such approaches can target levels of safety performance and the overall objective of continuous improvement of safety
be achieved.
5-12 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Operator's
com
mmitment and
re
esponsibility
Safety
S oversightt Opperational,
by State ae
eroplane,
(Performance aero
odrome and
monitoring and meteeorological
measurement) ca
apabilities
Opperational
Va
ariations
(Tacttical) Safety
Saffety assurance by
b
Risk MManagement
operator
S
Specific to
(Performance
operattional systems
monitoring and
or pro
ocesses that
measurement)
Seelecting Safety suppoort variations
P
Performance
Indiccators, establish
h
ba
aseline safety
perrformance, set
ale
ert and target
levels of
p
performance
Figure 5-2. Chapter 5 core criteria for the deveelopment and

d implementatiion
of opera ational variatio
ons
Note.— The hexagon n symbol iden ntifies the cap

pabilities and activities req quired to suppport the
Core develo
opment, implem mentation and d monitoring of operationa al variations. When used in the
capability appenddices to this ch
hapter, the sym
mbol identifies additional cap
pabilities or req
quirements asssociated
or activitty with sp
pecific operatio
onal variations
s that should be considered d within the o overall contextt of the
informa
ation provided in the body of th
he manual.
Ope
erator’s comm
mitment and re
esponsibility
5.4.3 Before any specific

s activitie
es related to performance-ba
p ased complian nce can begin, an operator m must be
able to demonstrate that itt exerts sufficie
ent organizatio
onal control ove
er internal sysstems and proccesses and the e use of
resources. This
T is important as contemp porary performaance-based co ompliance with regulation relies heavily on process
managemen nt to control op
perational outco omes based on performance e. As such, the e ability of an o
operator to con
ntrol the
outcome of key organizatio onal and opera ational processses becomes in production of sservices as well as the
ntegral to the p
effective management of th he safety risks associated with those servicees. To achieve these aims ma anagement mu ust:
ance 5-13
a) clearly id
dentify applicab
ble procedures, policies and ttasking;
b) establish
h procedures to
o perform activities and proce
esses; C
Core Capabilityy:
Operator interna
al
process
c) hire, train
n and supervise employees; m
management and d
control
d) allocate appropriate res
sources; and
e) ensure staff
s adhere to the
t standard operating proce dures (SOPs).
5.4.4 In particular the

t focus on process manage ement and con ntrol also makees it possible fo
or different sysstems to
provide acce eptable outcom mes as any number of poten ntial variations in process cou uld provide the e desired results. This
attribute of performance-b based systems s also allows operators
o to coonsider their o
operating envirronment and ffactor in
unique operating requirem ments as long as
a operational and
a safety perrformance alertts and target le evels are respe ected. It
also explainss how significant differences in process can yield a similarr and acceptable result.
5.4.5 The organiza

ational processses and behav viour are, to a degree, an in ndication of th
he safety perfo
ormance
standards. Some
S of these organizational
o processes, as illustrated in F
Figure 5-3, are:
Policy and
a Qualified
proceduure personnel
Testing Che
ecking
Conntinuous
Training
imprrovement
Repporting
Compliance
C Monitoring measuurement
Monitorring and a
analysis
to SOPs
(Tactical) Op
perational Safety
y Risk
Manage ement (See 5.4.33)
Figure 5-3. Organizational processes

5-14 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Policy and procedures

p
5.4.6 pment of concise policy and

The develop d procedure oor direction fro
om the operattor that demonstrates
compliance with
w the regula
ation of the Statte’s Authority and
a for the purp onal activity.
pose of controlling an operatio
5.4.7 The operatorr should define and docume ent the many systems, processes,
policies and procedures used in supportt of flight operrations. Such ddocumentation should
also clearly identify each operational acctivity to which an operationa
al variation ma
ay be
applied as well
w as addres ss the core criteria for the production of services inclu
uding Core capability
y:
FPFM policy andd
related pe erformance-bas sed subsyste ems or proc cesses. Addiitionally, ope erator
procedure
documentatiion should add dress the repoorting, measurrement and an nalysis of esse
ential
data to supp port each syste
em or process. Applicable systems or proce esses include but are
not limited to
o:
a) aerodromme selection processes

p inclu
uding those ussed to manage e the associate ed safety riskss and to
ensure a reasonable ce ertainty exists that
t a suitable runway will be
e available at th
he take-off, desstination
and/or alternate aerodrrome, as appliccable;
b) flight planning and in-flight re-planning systems andd/or processes including thosse used to man nage the
associate ed safety risks
s and to ensure e an aeroplane
e carries sufficiient fuel to com
mplete a planne
ed flight
safely annd allow for devviations from th
he planned rou te;
c) fuel com
mputation proce
esses used to determine
d the total fuel required to comple
ete each planne
ed flight
safely in
ncluding a peerformance-based process for the comp putation of re
eserve fuel inncluding
contingency fuel.
Qualified personnel
5.4.8 The staffing of positions with

w a sufficien
nt number of appropriately qualified
personnel em mpowered withh the responsib
bility and authoority to support the operationa
al activity
as well as fo
oster continuous improvementt.
C
Core capability:
Q
Qualified personn
nel
Training
5.4.9 Training to the

t operator’s policy and procedure to e ensure personn nel are
current, com
mpetent and qu ualified. Such training should apply, at a miinimum, to fligh
ht crew
and flight operations
o officers or other relevant operational conttrol personnel, as
applicable, and
a emphasizee the specific requirements associated
a h each operatiional
with C
Core capability::
activity. Training
ance 5-15
Compliance to Standard Operating

O Proce
edures (SOPs)
5.4.10 Ensuring that implementation of each op perational activvity is measura

able and
occurs in accordance with policy and proc cedure. Depen ndent systems sshould also be e capable
of supporting the operational activity (e.g. flight planniing systems sh hould be capaable of
supporting complex
c calculaations as necesssary to support flight planninng methods). Core capability:
Compliance to
SOPs
Monitoring
5.4.11 The operatorr should establlish a process of monitoring the effectiveneess and
efficiency off both organiza
ational and ope erational proceedures. Througgh data collecttion and
analysis proocesses that include the dem monstrable repo orting, measure
ement and ana alysis Core capabilityy:
capabilities necessary
n to is
solate and extrract information
n for adjustme
ent. Such proceesses Monitoring
a
operational data
should also:
collection and
analysis
a) use ope erationally rele
evant and me
eaningful perfformance and
d quality
indicatorrs;
b) isolate and extract the appropriate data for analysis;;
c) be sufficciently sophisticated to collect the large vo

olumes of ope erational data necessary to support
quantitattive decision making
m in altern
nate aerodrom
me selection, fliight planning rrefinement/re-a
analysis,
statistica
al contingencyy fuel calcula ations (as appplicable), effe
ective SRM a and other ap pplicable
organiza ational and operational proces sses.
The ability to collect, analyse and apply

a operatio onal data is a fundamental operational an nd SRM
activity, and
a operators should have the demonstrab ble ability to ro
outinely collect and/or effectivvely use
operation nal data in one
e or more of the
e ways listed in
n Table 5-3.
d) use stattistical and treend analysis methods

m durin
ng the analysiis of aeroplan
ne performancce data;
howeverr, it is recognize
ed that there arre occasions w
where nominativve comparisonns, simulation o
or expert
advice may
m be required d to interpret th
he data approprriately;
e) retain alll data used in the selection of

o alternate aerrodromes or th
he preparation of the flight plan for a
period off time as requirred by the State
e of the Operattor; and
f) interface
e with organizattional and SRM
M data collectio
on systems, as necessary.
Continuous improvement
5.4.12 Continuous improvement through an adjustment

a co
omponent or subsystem th hat responds to any
underperformmance or devia ation identified through internal or external q nce and safety assurance pro
quality assuran ocesses,
and to faciliitate improvemment of the sys stem or subsy ystem. It is im ng, measurement and
mportant to notte that reportin
analysis may y validate desirred performancce, negating the need for adjuustment.
Table 5-3.
Automated data collection and dissemination
Automated collection of information for input to a Fuel Consumption Monitoring (FCM) programme;
Automated collection of OUT/OFF/ON/IN data including times, fuel on board, aeroplane mass, flight path, speeds and
any other operational data points supplied by an aeroplane’s on-board systems;
Automated collection of en-route data including planned versus actual altitude, planned versus actual fuel, planned
versus actual route of flight and data points supplied by an aeroplane’s on-board systems;
Incorporation of FCM data into flight planning systems and aeroplane flight management systems;
The collection and analysis of route-specific fuel bias information;
Automated route, wind, mass and/or performance data uplinks to on-board systems.
Dynamic operational and flight planning
The use of Dynamic Airborne Re-route Procedure (DARP);
En-route re-clearance capability;
Recalculation of critical decision points;
Re-planning in the event of system failure;
Altitude availability analysis;
Use of aeroplane intent data;
Refined use of Cost Index;
Trending and averaging;
Dynamic aeroplane, engine, and route-specific fuel calculations;
Dynamic MEL/CDL performance calculation.
Operational, aeroplane, aerodrome and meteorological capabilities
5.4.13 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4 and 4.3.6.6, each to varying extents, identify the attributes of “capable” operators
that should be considered during SRM activities. Although the Standards differentiate between operational variations in
alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning, an assessment of an operator’s operational control capability, the
capabilities of individual aeroplanes, aerodrome capability, available infrastructure and the reliability of meteorological
information should be intrinsic in operational and SRM activities related to all operational variations. With this in mind,
the following descriptions of additional operator core capabilities are provided and should be considered by Authorities
and operators within the context of any operational variation approval and implementation process. See Figure 5-4.
ance 5-17
Organizational
Control,
Operational
O
Control
C and
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(SOPs)
Core
C Criteria:
Opera
ational Capabil ities
Figure 5-4
4. Operation
nal capabilities
s necessary to
o support ope
erational varia
ations
Operational control system

ms and Standarrd Operating Prrocedures (SO
OPs)
5.4.14 This providees the directioon for the con nduct of flightt operations. S Such
direction is usually
u determ
mined by an ind dividual or acco
ountable execu utive. The direection
or philosophhy contains thee overarching view
v from the company’s ma anagement on how
they want too operate. The SOPs
S are influenced by econnomic factors ssuch as the ma arkets Core capability
y:
O
Operational contrrol
to be served and the aerroplanes to be e operated. Suuch direction iss communicate ed to
and SOPs
managemen nt and front lin
ne personnel in n the form of strategic objecctives, policiess and
procedures.
5.4.15 It is this dirrection, defined by policy and

a proceduree, that createss the
environmentt within which operational
o conntrol personnel including the PIC, flight ope
erations officer and/or flight fo
ollowers,
as applicable
e, must work.
5.4.16 Direction, in the

t form of policy and proced dure nurtured by an organizaational philosop
phy and safetyy culture
that respects regulation, should
s producee a support structure that alllows pilots an
nd the applicab ble operationall control
personnel thhe authority too operate in compliance withw policy, pro
ocedure and rregulation. Thiis in turn crea ates an
environmentt where opera ational control can be exerc cised by the P PIC and other appropriately trained and q qualified
s intended and/or required by
personnel as y the State’s Au
uthority.
5-18 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
5.4.17 Some air carrrier operations s are so comp plex or large thhat specializattion in tradition
nal operationall control
functions becomes necess sary. Every spe ecialized aspecct of operationa
al control, howe
ever, should still support the PPIC and,
if applicable
e, the flight opperations office er (e.g. ATC coordination, N NOTAM collecction and disssemination, equipment
routing, mas ss and balanc ce, flight monittoring, field coondition monito oring, meteoroological conditiion monitoringg). Such
specializatio
on, by design, should
s also ennsure each spe ecialized functio
on supports bu ut does not impede the PIC’ss and, if
applicable, the flight operattions officer’s authority
a and allows such perrsonnel to condduct the operattion in compliannce with
the applicable regulations.
Flight monito
oring
5.4.18 In order to efffectively exerccise operationa

al control, an o
operator shouldd actively
monitor each flight as well as conditions s at the destination, en-routee, en-route alte
ernate
and destinattion alternate aerodromes
a (a
as applicable) nominated
n for use by the flig
ght up Core capability y:
until the flig
ght is no longe er dependent on the use off the applicablle aerodromess. The Flight monitoring
g
operator sho ould also have procedures in place to ensu ure that informaation that may affect
the conduct of the flight is available
a to the
e aeroplane.
5.4.19 Flight monitoring is conductted for the purpposes of providding real-time o

operational sup
pport for aeropllane en-
route and continually valid dating pre-fligh
ht planning ass sumptions. Ma any operators make significa ant investmentss in the
technologies s necessary to reliably fix an aeroplane’s po osition en-routee and monitor actual aeroplane performancce. Such
activities can
n lessen the seeverity of poten o mitigate the safety risks asssociated with operational variations.
ntial hazards or
Monitoring activities
a typically include, but are not limited
d to, the monito
oring of:
a) OUT/OFF/ON/IN data including times s, fuel on boarrd, aeroplane m

mass and any other operation
nal data
points su
upplied by an aeroplane’s
a on--board systemss;
b) en-route position data including plan

nned versus acctual altitude, p
planned versus actual fuel, planned
versus actual route of flight;
f
c) meteorological conditions at deparrture/arrival ae

erodrome, rou
ute of flight, a
alternate aero
odromes
(destinattion and en-rou
ute);
d) aerodromme conditions at the destin nation, en-rouute, en-route a alternate and destination a alternate
aerodrommes (as applica
able) nominate he flight up until the flight is no
ed for use by th o longer depen
ndent on
the use of
o the applicable aerodromes; and
e) the mainntenance statu us of aeroplan

nes for possib
ble Minimum E
Equipment Lisst (MEL)/Config
guration
Deviation
n List (CDL) restrictions.
Communication systems
5.4.20 The demons strable ability of

o an operatorr to rapidly an nd reliably conntact an
aeroplane en route forms the foundation n of modern op perational conttrol systems. P
Present-
day operato ors have acce ess to multiple e and redunda ant means of communicatio on to
ensure gaps s in coverage are
a minimized or o eliminated. Such
S redundanncies when used in Core capability
y:
Communication n
conjunction with other opeerational controol processes ca an lessen the sseverity of pote
ential
systems
hazards or mitigate
m safety risks associated with operattional variationss. Available means
to contact ae
eroplanes typic
cally include, buut are not limite
ed to, the use o
of:
ance 5-19
a) SATCOM
M;
b) VHF and
d HF (with/witho
out SELCAL) company
c freque
encies;
c) ACARS;
d) VHF/HF datalink; and
e) satellite datalink.
d
Ground-base
ed and airborne systems
5.4.21 Managementt personnel, flight crews, flight operationss officers, ope erational
control personnel and other entities in a position to mitigate
m potentiial safety riskss benefit
from the use e of the latest tools and tech
hnologies. Moddern-day opera ators systemat ically
use these toools to re-assesss assumptions made during g flight planning
g and to contin nually C
Core Capability
y:
adapt to chaanging conditions. Situational awareness and other tools a re typically use ed by G
Ground-based annd
Airborne Systems
A
operators to o fully exploit the capabilities of aeropla
anes, aerodrom mes and avaiilable
infrastructure
e and include one
o or more of the following:
a) advanced on-board flig

ght managemen
nt and navigati on systems;
b) CAT I, CAT
C II, CAT III approach
a capability and supp
porting infrastru
ucture;
c) RNAV/R
RNP APCH LNA
AV and LNAV/V
VNAV, RNP AR
R, LPV, GNSS, GBAS, SBAS
S approach cap
pability;
d) ADS-C/A
ADS-B aeroplane air and runw
way/taxiway po
ositioning;
e) aircraft situation
s display
y, real-time gra
aphical flight m
monitoring or traacking tools uttilizing ATC rad
dar data
for the purposes of reliaably fixing an aeroplane’s
a possition en-route;;
f) AO - FMS position repo

ort capability;
g) o HF/VHF posiition reporting by

access to b ANSP via A
Aeronautical Fixxed Telecommunication Netw
work;
h) access to
o on-line techn
nical logs;
i) on-board
d terrain esca ape tools that provide real--time lateral aand vertical g
guidance in ca ases of
depressuurization, engin ne failure or other
o event tha
at requires a cchange in the route or a desscent in
areas of critical terrain;
j) me and airspac
aerodrom ce security analysis;
k) Air Traffic Flow Manage

ement and/or participation
p witth ATM in colla
aborative decission making;
l) o 24-hour interrnational news for the purpose

access to e of hazard ide
entification;
m) access to
o ANSP web portal
p informatio
on;
n) flight planning systems with constant monitoring and

d measuring off information afffecting flight trrack and
aerodrom mes (OPMET and
a NOTAM); and a
o) disruption/event analys
sis/decision-ma
aking tools.
5-20 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Reliable metteorological an
nd aerodrome in
nformation
5.4.22 Obtaining acc curate meteoroological informa

ation as well ass the ability to monitor
en-route me eteorological coonditions, destination meteoroological and aeerodrome cond ditions is
essential in order for pilots
s and operationnal control pers
sonnel to dynammically re-eval uate,
Core capabilityy:
reanalyse an nd revalidate pre-flight
p planniing assumptionns. This capabiility augments what Reliable MET and
R
is typically available
a to the PIC in less robust system ms and closess gaps in cove erage aerodrome
where such information may m not be re eadily attainab
ble by the flig
ght crew en rroute. information
Additionally, the operational control pers sonnel involvedd in the monitooring and anal ysis of
such informa ation effectively
y expand the teeam of people dedicated to thhe safe comple etion of
a flight.
5.4.23 The most sophisticated ope erational controol, flight follow

wing, flight monnitoring and flig
ght watch systeems are
characterize
ed by their ab bility to monito
or information on any appliccable destinattion meteorolo ogical and aerrodrome
condition tha
at may pose a hazard to a fliight or invalida
ate pre-flight plaanning. Many employ dedica ated meteoroloogists as
well as ground-based obse ervers in areas where reliablee monitoring is not available b by any other me eans. Finally, the most
sophisticated
d operational control
c systems
s are characterrized by their ab bility to monitor continuously, as applicable::
a) destination and alternate (destination and en-route) meteorologica

al and aerodrom
me conditions;
b) tropical cyclone
c advisories;
c) Airport Automatic
A Weatther Systems (A
AWS);
d) volcanic ash advisories

s, earthquake events
e and tsun
nami;
e) gridded data
d turbulence
e, icing and CB
B;
f) aerodrom
me operating minima
m including reported RVR
Rs;
g) SIGMET
T, METAR/SPE
ECI, TAF;
h) NOTAM and runway co

ontaminations (e.g.
( snow/ice/s
/standing waterr);
i) blowing dust
d or other advisories relate
ed to limited vissibility; and
j) other foreseeable mete

eorological phe
enomena or aerrodrome condittion(s) that may pose a hazarrd.
5.4.24 In summary, an operator must have a solid foundation u

upon which to b
build the frame
ework that can support
performance e-based complliance with reg
gulation. Such
h a foundation is rooted in modern metho ods and techn nologies
related to the
e:
a) on of services;
productio
b) operation
nal control of flights, flight mo
onitoring and in -flight commun
nications;
c) exploitation of airborne and ground-ba

ased systems;
d) e aerodromes and
exploitation of available a infrastructu
ure; and
e) y and accessib
reliability bility of meteorological reportting, meteorolo
ogical forecastiing and field ccondition
monitorin ng.
ance 5-21
5.4.25 In fact and as

s previously staated, an assesssment of the hhazards posed by the absencce or presence of such
methods or technologies
t is
s a prerequisite
e for obtaining approval
a for op
perational varia
ations.
Safety
S Risk Ma
anagement (Op
perational)
5.4.26 Operational or “tactical” SRM

S is the subsystem thatt interfaces w with the internal production system
component (to a specific performance-b based system or o process) forr data reportin
ng, measureme ent and analyssis. This
includes the interfaces with
h SMS and qua ality systems to
o ensure opera
ational systemss and processees are subjecte
ed to the
organization’s overarching safety and quaality assurance
e processes (se
ee Figure 5-5).
5.4.27 It is importannt to note that ICAO’s Safetyy Managementt Manual (SMM M) (Doc 9859)) and other ap pplicable
publications provide extensive guidanc ce related to the
t use of S RM principless, implementattion of SMS a and the
maintenance e of SSPs. This s chapter make es extensive us
se of the inform ed in such publlications to provide the
mation containe
necessary guidance for the e operationally
y practical and tactical applica
ation of SRM pprinciples during alternate aerrodrome
selection, fliight planning and fuel management activ vities. It also p
provides a ge eneral overview w of the elem ments of
successful SRM
S that can be
b used for the purposes of bringing these sspecific operatiional processes under organiizational
control.
5.4.28 Operator processes for the e tactical assesssment and ma anagement of operational safety risks shou uld have
sufficient ma aturity, fidelity and sophistication to qualita atively and/or quantitatively assess the sa afety risks inherent in
alternate ae erodrome selec ction, flight pla
anning and fue el managemen nt. In all casess the aim of tthe operator’s internal
processes and controls sho ould be to ensu ure that, as a result
r of each o
operational var iation, there is,, to the greatesst extent
practicable, no increase in safety risk to the operation. SRM activitiess at the operat ional level sho ould also interfa ace with
SRM activitiies at the organizational lev vel. Much like organizationa al SRM or SM MS, the tactica al SRM of ope erational
activities reliies on process management and control and d should addreess at a minimuum:
Safety data collection and analysis
5.4.29 Central to suubsequent ope erational hazarrd identificationn and analysiss is the
supporting data
d used in the operator’s s processes. TheT importancce of actionab ble data
cannot be understated. Safety
S data co
ollected during g the course of operations , for
S
SRM capability::
example, is used to identify latent haza ards and subse equently to de etermine the saafety Safety data
risks that may
m require mitigation.
m Datta reliability is
s therefore crritical, and laccking collection and
sufficient re
eliability can le
ead to flawed assumptions,, incorrect hazzard identifica ation, analysis
inadequate safety risk ass sessment, inap ppropriate mitiggation and, in the worst case e, can
introduce haazards that are more serious than
t those orig
ginally present.
5.4.30 Data are used both in reactive and proactiive hazard iden ntification and iin mature syste
ems may be ussed as a
predictive measure
m to antic
cipate future hazards. Due to o the critical na
ature of safety data collectionn, operators sh hould be
able to demo onstrate that th
he data they usse in policy and
d procedure de evelopment ha ave the required d integrity. To this end
the operatorr should be able to demonstrrate a continuo ous process off data collectio on, verification and analysis. As data
will inevitably be accessed from a variety y of sources, eaach will requiree an assessme ent by the opera uitability
ator as to its su
for use in opperational decission making.
5.4.31 It is importan
nt to note that in order to achieve target leevels of operattional and safeety performancce, large
volumes of safety and op perational dataa must be acq quired. The accquisition of sa afety data in pparticular requires the
development of predictive data collection n systems to coomplement exissting reactive a and proactive ccollection syste
ems. To
that end, ele
ectronic data acquisition
a systtems and non-jjeopardy self-rreporting progrrammes should d be present to o collect
safety data from
f normal op
perations, with and without the need for trigggering events tthat launch the
e safety data coollection
processes.
5-22 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Policy an
nd Quualified
procedurre personnel
Testing C
Checking
Conttinous
Training
improvvement
R
Reporting
Adjustmentt me
easurement
an
nd analysis
mpliance
Com
Monitorin
ng
with SOPs
(Organiza
ational) Safety
Risk Maanagement
(Operational) Safety
Risk Manage ement
Quality Assurance
Hazard
Decision Id
dentification/
Analysis
Sa
afety Risk Safety Risk
S
As
ssessment Analysis
Figure 5-5. The relations

ship between Operational S
SRM and
Organiza ational SRM (S
SMS)
5.4.32 In summary, safety data collection processes should interface with operational reporting systems related to
the production of services, address each operational variation and be sufficiently sophisticated to collect the requisite
volume of operational and safety data necessary to support effective SRM of the operational activity. They should:
a) isolate and extract the appropriate data from a variety of sources (related to the operational activity)
for analysis. Data sources include but are not limited to those contained in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4.
State/Official sources
States provide much of the data used in aviation. Due to controls put in place by the State the data are
generally, but not always, reliable. Examples of State sources that supply data are:
State Meteorology Authorities;
• World Area Forecast Centres (WAFC);

• Tropical Cyclone Advisory Centres (TCWC);
• Meteorological Watch Offices;
• State NOTAM Offices;
• Volcanic Ash Advisory Centres (VAAC);
• Air Traffic Control Centres and Airport Authorities.
Operator-derived data
Operators have access to large amounts of data specific to their unique operations. Unlike State/official
sources, the operator assumes the responsibility of ensuring data accuracy. Examples of operator
derived data are:
• Hull-specific fuel burn data;

• Flight planning fuel and operating statistics including data to support contingency fuel calculations;
• Monitoring of aeroplane operations (taxi times, holding times, average flight time, fuel burn, ground
distance from the arrival fix to the airport/runway, diversion rates, etc.);
• Incident reports;
• Crew reports;
• Aerodrome and route surveillance and monitoring.
Other sources
Operators may use data from a variety of other sources, some of which will provide data with the required
integrity, and some of which will not. In many cases the ability to verify the accuracy of the data gained
may be difficult in which case operators should exercise extreme care before using it as the basis of an
operational decision. Examples of other sources are:
• IATA;
• ICAO;
• Aeroplane manufacturers;
• News services;
• Third Party providers;
• Consultants.
Note.— These are recommended data points only. Actual data points may vary based on the availability
of data for collection and analysis.
b) include a process to receive, collate and analyse all reports made by flight crew, dispatch staff or
from any other person or source that could indicate a potential degradation in the safety of flights
related to the implementation of each operational variation. Such safety reporting systems take many
forms but typically have a web- or server-based component coupled with a centralized database. This
type of electronic reporting system allows for the remote submission of reports by operational
personnel, the systematic processing of those reports, and the automatic generation of trend and
performance data.
Fully integrated web-based reporting systems can also allow operational personnel to complete a
prescribed reporting template containing all of the data points necessary for effective hazard reporting
from anywhere in the world. While fundamental, this type of reporting system dramatically improves
the ability of operators to identify trends, follow up on events, and identify opportunities for operational
improvements while collecting data in a manner consistent with the processes of hazard identification
and safety risk management;
c) provide feedback and control references against which to measure hazard analysis and
consequence management, as well as the efficiency of the sources or methods of safety information
collection;
d) provide material for root cause and safety trend analyses, as well as for safety education and
flight crew training purposes; and
e) collect data relevant to the mitigation of the specific safety risks associated with alternate
aerodrome selection and fuel planning including but not limited to the data specified in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5.
Examples of data in relation to city-pair
• Actual versus planned taxi times;
• Taxi and ground delays;
• En-route speed restrictions (ATC, turbulence, etc.);
• En-route deviations (route and altitude for ATC, Wx, etc.);
• Air traffic delays experienced;
• ATC flow management and aerodrome capacity/congestion and demand;
• Runway closures or reductions in aerodrome capacity;
• Any ATC or aerodrome factors that could contribute to the planned fuel consumption being
exceeded;
• 100 per cent consumption of contingency fuel;
• 100 per cent consumption of holding fuel;
• Low fuel state (as defined by operator or Authority);
• Minimum fuel state (as defined by operator or Authority);
• Emergency fuel state (as defined by operator or Authority);

ance 5-25
Examples of da
ata in relation tto city-pair
• Less than final reserve fuel re

emaining;
• Actual
A versus planned
p time spent holding;
• Actual
A versus planned
p SID/STAR ground track flown (inclu
uding portion o
of Point Merge STAR actuallyy
flown,
f if applica
able);
• Missed approa
aches;
• Additional
A approaches;
• Proceeding to destination alte ome or diversio ns prior to destination;

ernate aerodro
• Proceeding to en-route altern

nate aerodrome
e (e.g. due to in
n-flight re-dispa
atch or re-planning)
• Ground-based approach facillities malfunctio

ons;
• Destination or alternate aerod

drome meteoro
ological conditio
ons below fore
ecast conditionss;
• Other factors or occurrences s identified by the Authority or the operato

or as having ccaused delays,,
diversions, add
ditional fuel con
nsumption or other
o undesirabble outcomes.
Note.— This iss not a compre ehensive list of required data

a points to be collected by aan operator butt
mereely representattive of the typpe of data tha at may be rele evant in the a analysis of saffety risks. It iss
undeerstood that the
e collection of such data may y prove problemmatic to individ
dual operators based on theirr
operrating environm
ments and data collection capa abilities.
Hazard identification
5.4.33 Hazard identtification and safety

s risk ma
anagement are e two core pro ocesses
involved in the
t overall man nagement of safety. This sec ction presents operationally rrelevant
guidance forr the identificattion and analy
ysis of the hazaards to be connsidered duringg the
development or application of alternate aerodrome se election and fuuel planning p
policy S
SRM capability::
and process s. While this section
s focuse
es primarily onn hazards, the e ensuing secttions Hazard
identification
discuss the safety
s risks asssociated with th
he outcomes ofo identified hazzards.
5.4.34 Hazard identtification processes rely heav vily on the sub

bordinate data collection proccesses, addresss each
operational variation,
v and are
a designed to t identify the foreseeable
f ha
azards that cou uld increase the e safety risk to
o a flight
or series off flights. Aeropplane operation ns comprise numerous
n hazaards, many off which are co omplex in natu ure and
interrelated. An operator’s s alternate aerodrome selec ction and fuel planning proccesses can be e primary metthods of
mitigating the safety risks inherent in ope
erations. If thes
se and associatted processes are to achieve e target levels o
of safety
performance e, however, the e operator mus st systemically record and cla assify the hazaards that will b
be encountered d during
routine operations. A non-e exhaustive list of potential haz
zards for consiideration is con
ntained in Table e 5-6.
Table 5-6.
Potential hazards to be considered during alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning
• Routine adverse meteorological • Natural hazards that take many forms and include, but are
conditions not limited to: tropical storms, winter storms, droughts,
tornadoes, thunderstorms, icing, freezing precipitation,
heavy rain, snow, winds, restricted visibility, lightning, wind
shear or any other relevant meteorological phenomena
• Extreme meteorological conditions • Natural hazards such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes,

snow and dust storms
• Geophysical events • Natural disasters that are difficult to predict such as

volcanic eruptions, earthquakes or tsunami
• Space weather • A natural hazard linked to variations in solar activity, the

consequences of which include its effect on aeroplane
communications, satellite communications and navigation
and, at high latitudes, the potential impact on human
health. Identification of hazards related to space weather is
especially important with the increase in satellite-based
navigation procedures that use operational minima
predicated on the availability of satellites.
• ATM congestion • A technical hazard, on the ground and in the air, and a
significant contributor to fuel usage
• Mechanical failure of aeroplane • A technical hazard when failures result in a reduction of an

systems aeroplane’s specific ground range or approach and landing
capability
• Geography • Natural hazards such as adverse terrain or large bodies of

water
• Isolated aerodromes • Aerodromes are typically considered isolated if the fuel

required (alternate plus final reserve fuel) to the nearest
alternate aerodrome is more than the fuel to fly for two
hours at normal cruise consumption above the destination
aerodrome, including final reserve fuel
• Runway or airspace closure • A technical hazard that increases fuel consumption and/or
limits landing options
• Political unrest • Examples: political unrest or terrorism
• Organizational or operational change • Examples: changes to key personnel, rapid growth, rapid
contraction, corporate mergers, equipment changes or
other systemic changes
• Any other hazard related to the • Examples: limitations related to ATC, aerodromes, field
capability of the operator, aerodromes condition reporting, meteorological reporting/forecasting,
or related infrastructure technology, operational control, flight following, flight
monitoring/watch
ance 5-27
5.4.35 In summary, hazard identification proces sses should a

address each ooperational va
ariation, be suffficiently
sophisticatedd to ensure that target levels
s of safety perrformance can be achieved by ensuing saafety risk manaagement
activities and
d:
a) interface
e with subordina
ate operational and safety da
ata collection prrocesses; and
b) identify the foreseeable

e hazards that could
c increase
e the safety riskk to a flight or sseries of flights.
Hazard anallysis
5.4.36 Once a haz zard has been n identified it must be ana alysed in orde er to
determine its e development or application of policy and procedure. No
s effect on the ot all
operations will
w be affected d to the same e degree due to the conseq quences of a g given
hazard. For example, the absence
a of VMC at an aerodrrome that is se rved by a VOR R and SRM capability:
an ILS approoach may prev vent the operattion of aeroplannes that do nott carry the req uired Hazard analysiss
equipment. Conversely, there may be no o effect on the operation of aaeroplanes tha at are
fitted with ILS and VOR R receivers. Hazard
H analyssis, therefore, will establishh the
operational context and provide
p the basis for determmining the apprropriate safetyy risk
mitigation.
5.4.37 Fundamentallly, hazard ana alysis consists of the identifiication of a ge eneric or top-leevel hazard, bbreaking
down the geeneric hazard into an operatio onally specific component an nd linking operrationally speciific hazards to specific
potential outcomes. For illustrative purp
poses, Table 5-75 analyses th hree hazards d derived from tthe list of foreseeable
hazards in Table
T 5-6. It limits the corre
elation of poteential outcomess to the lowerr-level operatio onal conseque ences of
hazards as necessary
n to ensure the deve elopment of effeective safety rissk mitigation sttrategies.
5.4.38 Hazard analyysis should be sufficiently sopphisticated to e

ensure that accceptable levels of safety perfo ormance
can be mainntained by the ensuing SRM activities of the e operator. Byy not fully analyysing the availa
able data, an ooperator
may draw premature orr inaccurate conclusions
c during
d a safetty risk assesssment of an operational activity.
Notwithstand
ding the need for
f detailed datta analysis therre will be occassions where th he time availablle is limited. Op
perators
should have a range of dec g those that all ow them to ad apt expeditioussly to hazards that are
cision analysis tools including
presented without
w warning.
Table
T 5-7.
Breakin
ng down hazarrds
Gene
eric
hazard Operationally
y specific hazarrd Po
otential outcom
mes
Meteorology Tropiccal storms, win nter storms, drooughts, • Invalidation off flight planning
g assumptions
tornaddoes, thunders storms, icing, frreezing • Re-routes
precippitation, heavy rain, snow, win nds, • Contingency ffuel use
restric
cted visibility, liightning, wind shear
s • Contingency ffuel exhaustion n
and any
a other releva ant meteorolog gical • Unplanned divversion
pheno omena • Low fuel statee
• Emergency la anding
Extreme Tropic
cal cyclones, to
ornadoes, snow
w and • Injury to perso
onnel
meteorological dust storms
s
condition
ns
Geophyssical Volca
anic eruptions, earthquakes or
events tsuna
ami
5.4.39 In summary, hazard analysis processes should address each operational variation, be sufficiently
sophisticated to ensure that acceptable levels of safety performance can be maintained by ensuing safety risk
management activities and:
a) interface with subordinate hazard identification processes.
b) analyse all identified hazards for the purpose of subsequent risk assessment, mitigation and
management.
c) include, but not be limited to, proactive and predictive processes for tracking incident rates
associated with flight planning failures including flight diversions and other relevant indicators of safety
performance, as applicable to each operational variation. Such processes should have sufficient
fidelity to discern if low fuel states, diversions or other undesired states were the result of process
failures or inadequate mitigation strategies. They should also identify and emphasize lower level
process failures with potentially damaging consequences to operations in order to encourage the
development of effective mitigation strategies.
Note.— An analysis of the data derived from these processes can be also used to determine the
extent to which the high-level safety objectives of the safety interventions of mitigation strategies have
been achieved and provide a measure of the actual operational performance of tactical SRM activities.
Additionally, the data can be used to customize safety risk assessment tools.
d) address hazards that manifest themselves without warning such as geophysical events. In order
to cope with such hazards, operators may need to acquire data from sources that would be
considered unreliable under normal circumstances. Such data may be confused and contradictory at
times and, due to time constraints, a proper analysis may not be possible or prudent. Despite these
constraints, an operator should be able to determine an appropriate course of action given the data
that are available, and hazard identification processes should allow for such eventualities.
Additionally, and as part of post-incident processes related to geophysical events (or other hazards
that manifest themselves without warning), the operator should conduct an analysis of the data
received to determine its value in the event of similar (future) events. This would lead to additional
analysis of the impact on operations to determine if new or added safety risk mitigation strategies are
required. Standard hazard identification models may be difficult to apply in such cases requiring an
operator that has an increased exposure to certain geophysical events to pre-plan its responses to an
event.
For example, consider an operator that conducts operations within an island nation subject to tsunami.
The generic, or top level hazard, would be a geophysical event. The specific operational hazard may
be aerodrome inundation resulting in the aerodrome of intended landing not being available for an
extended period of time. Further, all normally available landing areas may be inundated forcing the
aeroplane to use a landing surface not normally approved. An operator may mitigate the outcomes of
these hazards by having available a list of emergency landing surfaces available at higher elevations
that could be used in the case of such an emergency.
e) consider the limitations of quantitative data. Hazard analysis processes typically involve the use of
both qualitative and quantitative data. Due to the complexities of dynamic operating environments,
operators often have to rely on qualitative data when making operational decisions. Ideally,
quantitative data are typically preferred, as they are considered objective and repeatable given a
constant set of conditions and constraints.
Data presented in a quantitative form, such as a numerical rate, should actually have the underlying
attributes required to ensure objectivity. This is necessary to ensure ongoing user confidence in the
accuracy and suitability of the data relative to the intended application.
For example, while historical data are often presented in a numerical form (e.g. events/period of time)
and initially considered quantitative; it could be easily argued that such data are more qualitative in
nature. In assessing the degree to which the data are actually quantitative or qualitative, an operator
should consider the following:
1) Were stable conditions present throughout the time frame for which the data were captured?
2) Were all possible variables excluded?
3) Were there changes to procedures or technology that could explain variations over time?
4) Were sufficient data points used to justify the conclusions made?
5) Are the data repeatable?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, the data may be largely qualitative in nature and their
ability to predict future events is limited. For example, an operator may claim that in one year of
operations it had an overall fuel incident rate of 1.8 per 100 000 departures while the year before the
rate was 2.6 per 100 000 departures. Was there an improvement in safety performance? The answer
cannot be determined simply from an examination of the numerical data presented.
An analyst wishing to make such a determination would need to establish that the data for the two
years of operation were comparable. Variations in route structure, meteorological conditions,
aerodrome facilities and numerous other factors may all have contributed to the reduced incident rate,
however the operator’s underlying safety organization or culture may not have changed. Conversely,
an operator that has a sophisticated FCM programme is entitled to state that the average fuel usage
has decreased by 1.5 per cent if it can demonstrate consistency of data, absence of variation and
removal of bias.
The limitations of data should be clearly understood, however, if data are to be used effectively as a
predictor of future events. Hazard analysis and the safety risk assessment activities that follow
inevitably involve the use of qualitative data as it may be impossible to accurately quantify probability
in complex systems due to the number of variables involved. For this reason the analysis of hazards,
and their associated risk, will always involve an assessment by individuals within an operator’s
organization. If the operator is to maintain a level of consistency in the decision-making process then
specific processes and instructions need to be provided to such individuals. Such processes are vital if
the operator’s risk appetite is to be reflected in decisions made by individuals charged with the
identification and analysis of hazards.
f) document the hazards that are normal components or elements of operations. Hazards are integral
to the operating environment of the operator and should not be viewed as rarities or one-off events.
Therefore the documentation of a hazard, along with the analysis and mitigation measures taken, will
reduce the management resources required when the hazard recurs. It is important that operators
maintain a consistency of action if post-event review and analysis as to the effectiveness of mitigation
strategies and controls are to produce meaningful outcomes. Such consistency is the result of sound
documentation techniques.
Operators should develop processes to record hazards in a manner that facilitates their review.
Ideally, by recording hazards in a database system, higher level statistical evaluation of the hazards
encountered during routine operations would be facilitated. This allows a process of prioritization that
would commit operators to address hazards that have the greatest operational impact. Such
prioritization is possible only within a system that efficiently documents the hazards, analysis and
mitigation that takes place in the support of an operational activity.
Note.— Operators that do not maintain a system of documentation risk the loss of operational
knowledge, repetition of preventable incidents, and the inability to apply effective mitigation strategies
consistently.
5.4.40 For illustrative purposes, an example safety risk assessment begins with a hazard analysis as follows: An
operator is substituting a B767-300 for an A330-300 on its route from Caracas (SVMI) to London Heathrow (EGLL) to
adjust for a seasonal decrease in demand.
5.4.41 The operator has CAA approval to operate the route using a variation from a prescriptive regulation related
to the carriage of contingency fuel. The variation allows the operator to optimize fuel for the route based on numerous
demonstrable capabilities and the outcome of specific safety risk assessment. This is a new route for the B767, however,
and the route of flight has limited en-route diversion options and traverses the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone known
for severe convective activity. The change in aeroplane type also coincides with the onset of winter in the United
Kingdom.
5.4.42 After completing a hazard analysis (Table 5-8), the operator determines that the specific hazards related to
the change in type are:
a) insufficient type-specific flight planning data for the route;
b) inexperience of B767 flight crews and operational control personnel with the new route;
c) the route is near the maximum range of the aeroplane with maximum payload and mandated
reserves; and
d) meteorological conditions en-route and at the destination (EGLL).
5.4.43 Some of the potential consequences of the hazard of primary concern to the operator are the over burn of
trip fuel, contingency fuel exhaustion, diversions or other occurrences that could result in a landing at an aerodrome with
less than final reserve fuel. The identification of these undesirable outcomes completes the process of hazard analysis
and forms the foundation for safety risk assessment. During this assessment, the consequences of these hazards,
expressed in terms of probability and severity (as an alphanumerical convention) will quantify the safety risk.
Table 5-8.
Example hazard analysis: New service for aeroplane type
Generic hazard Operationally specific hazards Potential outcomes
• Insufficient type-specific fuel • Invalidation of flight planning assumptions

planning experience that may result
in inaccurate or inappropriate: • Loss of confidence in planning processes
1) total fuel calculation; • Over-burn of trip fuel
2) taxi and trip fuel calculations; • Re-routes
3) reserve fuel calculations • Contingency fuel use

including contingency fuel;
• Contingency fuel exhaustion
4) nomination of alternate
New service for aerodromes or alternate fuel • Unplanned diversion
aeroplane type calculations;
(B767) • Low fuel state
5) additional fuel or calculations;
• Emergency landing
6) discretionary fuel calculations;
• Injury to personnel
• Flight crew for new aeroplane type
unfamiliar with route;
• Route near maximum range of the

aeroplane;
• Meteorological conditions along the

route and at destination.
Note.— Potential outcomes related to operationally specific hazards can be used as the basis for the
definition of safety indicators used to measure and monitor system performance. This concept will be explained
later in this chapter.
Safety risk assessment and mitigation
5.4.44 Safety risk analysis/assessment is a core SRM activity, besides hazard identification/analysis, that
supports the management of safety risks and contributes to other, indirectly related operational and organizational
processes. Before the process of managing any safety risks can begin, it is essential to somehow measure the
seriousness of the consequences of inherent hazards. By quantifying the consequences of hazards, the safety risk
management process begins and provides the operator with a basis for the safety risk decisions that will subsequently
contain or limit the damaging potential of hazards.
5.4.45 It is important to note that safety risk is simply a construct intended to measure the seriousness of, or “put
a number” on, the consequences of hazards. As such, safety risk is an assessment, typically expressed in alpha-
numeric terms of predicted probability and severity, of the consequences of a hazard. The definition of safety risk allows
operators to link specific safety risks with hazards and consequences in order to complete an initial safety risk
assessment.
5-32 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Safety risk probability

p asse
essment.
5.4.46 Operators co ontinue the pro

ocess of bringinng safety riskss under organizzational
control by assessing
a the probability tha
at the consequences of hazzards will matterialize
during flightt operations. This
T is knownn as assessing the safety risk probabilitty or
SRM activity:
assessing th he likelihood that an unsafe event
e or conditiion might occu
ur, and it is typiically
Safety risk
qualitatively or quantitatively expressed in
n terms of frequuency of occurrrence. probability
assessment
5.4.47 In assessing the probability
y or likelihood th
hat an unsafe event might occcur, an
operator sho ould make use evant historical data containe
e of all the rele ed in its “safetyy library”
as well as consult with subject-matter experts (SM MEs). The esttablishment off realistic,
qualitatively-- and, when feeasible, quantittatively-derived
d categories deenoting the pro obability (of an
n occurrence) and the
relationship between the observed even nts and undes sirable outcom
mes are the ke eys to the devvelopment of e effective
probability assessment
a to
ools. When us sing qualitative analyses to o determine tthe probability of occurrencces, the
descriptions in Figure 5-6 are
a commonly accepted aids to judgment.
5.4.48 Returning to the example safety risk asse essment scena ario, the operat or forms a team comprised o of SMEs
from the A33
30 and B767 fleet departmen nts to consider the probabilityy that any or alll of the potentia
al outcomes re
elated to
the previous
sly identified ha
azards will ma
aterialize during
g operations. T The team initiaally reviews all available info
ormation
and data fro
om both fleets to determine,, based on the e previous init iation of servicce with the A3 330, if occurre
ences of
unplanned fu
uel use resulted in any of the undesirable ouutcomes identiffied during hazzard analysis.
5.4.49 ve purposes, the

For illustrativ t team of SMEsS determin
nes that althou ugh undesirable outcomes ssuch as
landing at ann aerodrome other
o than the planned
p commercial destinatiion, due to une expected fuel cconsumption, o
occurred
infrequently on the A330, such outcomes were somew what more likelyy to occur with
h the assignme ent of the B767 to the
route. As su
uch, the initial qualitative
q asse
essment of freq quency was su ubsequently ca ategorized as ““Occasional” ussing the
operator's prredefined qualitative risk prob
bability criteria (see Figure 5-6
6).
5.4.50 As previously
y mentioned the
e probability orr likelihood of a
an occurrence can also be exxpressed quanttitatively
(Figure 5-7)..
FREQUENC
CY OF OCCUR
RRENCE
(5) FREQUENT: Like

ely to occur ma
any times or ha s occurred freq
quently.
CCASIONAL: Likely
(4) OC L to occur sometimes
s or h
has occurred in
nfrequently.
(3) REMOTE: Unlikelly to occur, butt possible or ha

as occurred rarrely.
PROBABLE: Very
(2) IMP V unlikely to occur (not kno
own to have occcurred).
(1) EXT PROBABLE: Almost

TREMELY IMP A inconce
eivable that the event will occu
ur.
Figure
e 5-6. Examplle
ance 5-33
FREQUENC
CY OF OCCUR
RRENCE
Qualitativ
ve Quantititative
(5) Frequen
nt: • thos
se occurrencess having an avverage probability per operatio
on
(sec der of 1x 10-4 orr greater
ctor) of the ord
(4) Occasio
onal: • thos
se occurrencess having an avverage probability per operatio on
(sec der of 1x 10-4 orr less, but grea
ctor) of the ord ater than of the order
of 1 x 10-6
(3) Remote
e: • thos
of 1 x 10-7
(2) Improba
able: • thos
of 1 x 10-9
(1) Extreme
ely Improbable: • thos
se occurrencess having an avverage probability per operatio
on
(sec der of 1x 10-9 orr less
ctor) of the ord
Con
nversion Table
10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 0-3

10 10-2 10-1
1/1 000 000

0 000 1/100 000 000 1/10 000 000 1/1 000 000 1
1/100 000 1//10 000 1/1 0
000 1/100 1/10
.0000000
001 .00000001 .0
0000001 .000001 .00001 .0001 .00
01 .01 .1
Figure
e 5-7. Examplle
5.4.51 This allows safety

s risk prob
bability assesssments to be ffurther refined by operators tto include quaantitative
data and requires the qua alitative descrip ency of occurrrence to be asssigned quantittative values. In other
ptors for freque
words, the te
erms frequent, occasional, re emote, improba able, and extremmely improbab ble are assigneed numerical va
alues as
appropriate to reflect the historical
h freque
ency of occurrences. Such re efinements cann significantly increase the a
accuracy
of the probaability assessmments and wo ould be espec cially useful du
uring system ssafety perform mance monitoring and
measuremen nt activities.
Safety risk severity

s assess
sment
5.4.52 Once the lik kelihood that an

a unsafe eve ent or conditionn might occur has
been assess sed in terms of probability, th
he third step in
n the process oof bringing spe ecific
safety risks under organiza ational control is an assessment of the seve erity of the hazzards
if their dam
maging potential materializes s during flightt operations. T
This is known n as SRM activity:
assessing thhe safety risk se
everity. S
Safety risk severitty
assessment
5.4.53 Safety risk severity

s is the potential cons sequence of a an unsafe even nt or
condition ussing the worst foreseeable consequence
c as the upper limit. The gen neric
Hazard Seve erity table conttained in Figuree 5-8 includes five vertical co
olumns that con ntain
categories to
o denote the le evel of severity of an occurren
nce, the meanin ng of each cate
egory, and the assignment off a value
to each cateegory. The definitions of all th he terms related to severity a re provided forr illustrative pu
urposes, and op
perators
should ensure they are app propriately defined in a manner consistent w with operationaal requirementss and the requirrements
of the State’s civil aviation oversight autho ority.
5-34 Flig
ght Planning an ement (FPFM) Manual
nd Fuel Manage
EXA
AMPLE ONLY
HAZA
ARD SEVERITY
Y
CATASTROPHIC HAZARDO
OUS MAJOR MIN
NOR NEGLIGIBLE
E
Hull
H loss, A large redu uction A significant Nuisa
ance or Little or no
equipment
e in safety ma argins, redu uction in safetyy minor incid
dent, slight safety effect
destroyed,
d physical dis stress, margins, reduction
n in safety to the
multiple deaths excessive crew signiificant increasee margins, slight operational
workload, se erious in crew workload, increase
es in crew capability of
injury, or major
m serioous incident orr workkload the aeroplane e
damage to inju
ury to persons or flight crew
equipme ent
A B C D E
Figure
F 5-8.
5.4.54 Continuing with

w the example scenario, the e operator’s tea
am of SMEs assesses the po otential conseq
quences
of trip fuel over-burn,
o conttingency fuel exhaustion
e andd unplanned d iversions resulting in landing gs with less thhan final
reserve fuel.. This assessm ment could be further refined viav statistical a data existed to reach a
analysis if sufficcient relevant d
quantitative conclusion. In this case, and for illusttrative purposses, the team m qualitatively determines tthat the
consequenc ces of unplanne ed fuel use couuld result in a la
arge reduction of safety marg gins (landing att a suitable aerrodrome
with less thaan final reserve
e fuel remainingg). Such large reductions in ssafety margins are categorize ed as Hazardou us in the
operator’s safety
s risk ass
sessment polic cy. They also determine tha at the potentia al rates of unplanned fuel u use are
o maintain the safety risks of a catastrophic outcome at to lerable levels.
insufficient to
Safety risk to
olerability asse
essment
5.4.55 The fourth steps in the process

p of bringing specificc safety riskss under
organizational control is the
e assessment of olerability and iis a two-step process.
o safety risk to
SRM activity:
5.4.56 Figure 5-9 presents
p an exxample of a (q qualitative) five
e-point Safety Risk Safety risk
Assessmentt Matrix. In this
s case, it can be
b used to dete ermine the saffety risk index or to tolerability
“put a numbber” in terms of
o probability and severity on n the conseque ences of a hazzard. assessment
Although the matrix, inclu uding elementts of severity, risk assessm ment and tolerrability
represents industry standa ards, the levell of detail and complexity off a matrix sho ould be
adapted andd commensuratte with the partticular needs and
a complexitie es of a specificc operator
and in accorrdance with the
e requirements of the Authoritty.
Note.— The matrix in Figure 5-9 differs s slightly from

m typical matricces in that it has been ada apted to
accommoda ate the conceptt of a level of riisk that may require action annd/or be consid
dered acceptab ble upon review
w by the
appropriate manager, SME E or Authority.
5.4.57 Again referring to the exa ample, the team of SMEs a assigned the ta ask of assesssing the safetyy risk to
operations in ned that the probability of unp
nitially determin planned fuel usse posing a hazard was Occa asional. The team also
assessed that the severity of the consequences associated with the p potential for a llanding at a su
uitable aerodro
ome with
less than final reserve fuel remaining was s Hazardous.
EXAMPLE ONLY
QUALITATIVE SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
HAZARD PROBABILITY HAZARD SEVERITY
CATASTROPHIC HAZARDOUS MAJOR MINOR NEGLIGIBLE
Hull loss, equipment A large reduction in A significant Nuisance or Little or no safety

destroyed, multiple safety margins, reduction in safety minor incident, effect to the
deaths physical distress, margins, significant slight reduction operational
excessive crew increase in crew in safety capability of the
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
workload, serious workload, serious margins, slight aeroplane or flight
injury, or major incident or injury to increases in crew
damage to persons crew workload
equipment
A B C D E
(5) FREQUENT
Likely to occur many times or has occurred 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E
frequently
(4) OCCASIONAL
Likely to occur sometimes or has occurred 4A 4B 4C 4D 4E
infrequently
(3) REMOTE
Unlikely to occur, but possible or has 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E
occurred rarely
(2) IMPROBABLE
Very unlikely to occur (not known to have 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E
occurred)
(1) EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE

Almost inconceivable that the event will 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E
occur
Safety Risk Assessment Index Risk Level
5A, 5B, 5C, 4A, 4B, 3A Unacceptable risk under current circumstances–Immediate action
required Unacceptable
Drive
5D, 4C, 4D, 3B, 3C, 2A, 2B Risk is Tolerable based on mitigation towards
Tolerable
ALARP
5E, 4E, 3D, 2C, 1B, 1A Acceptable risk with review by the appropriate Manager, SME or
Authority Review Risk
Acceptable
3E, 2D, 2E, 1C, 1D, 1E Risk is Acceptable as it currently stands
Figure 5-9.
5-36 ght Planning an
Flig nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
5.4.58 In order to de
etermine the sa afety risk index
x associated wiith the planned d operation it iss first necessary to use
a matrix tha
at combines the fundamentalls of safety risk managemen nt into one illusstrative tool (see Figure 5-9)). In the
example, a specific
s hazard d probability ha
as been assess sed as Occasio onal (4), and the specific hazzard severity ha as been
assessed ass Hazardous (B B). The compo osite of probability and severitty (4B) is the sa
afety risk of thee consequence es of the
hazard undeer considerationn (safety risk in
ndex).
5.4.59 Second, the tolerability of the safety risk index is assesssed. In the ex ample, the possitioning of (4B B) in the
matrix and the colour code e (red) indicatee that the risk iss “unacceptabl e under curren nt circumstance es”. The colourr coding
in the matrix
x simply reflects
s the tolerabilitty regions in the risk level ind icator (inverted
d triangle). It iss important to n
note that
the shading as well as otheer specific indiccators in the ma atrix are define
ed by each State and individu ual operator.
Safety risk control

c and mitiigation
5.4.60 The fifth and final step in the

t process off bringing speccific safety riskks under
organizational control is the deploymen nt of safety ris
sk control and mitigation strrategies.
Such strateg gies are deploy
yed by operators to address thet specific hazzards and drive e the
safety risk in
ndex toward a target
t level of safety
s performa
ance. SRM activity:
S
Safety risk contro
ol
and mitigation
5.4.61 Continuing with

w the example e scenario, haz zards with a saafety risk indexx of (4B) (unaccceptable underr current
circumstances) would requuire an action plan
p to be deve eloped in order to drive the ind dex out of the rred range and towards
the acceptab
ble or green raange. Action plans for safety y risk mitigation
n/control emplo oy three basic strategies: Avvoidance
(of the operation), Reducction (in freque ency of the operation or m magnitude of cconsequences) and Segrega ation (of
exposure by
y limiting operattions to approp
priately qualified
d flight crew m
members or app propriately capaable aeroplanees).
5.4.62 To bring the example safe

ety risk assesssment scenario o to its conclusion, it would be necessaryy for the
operator in this
t case to ac e of the following mitigation sstrategies in order to move tthe index towa
ccomplish one ards the
acceptable (green)
( range:
a) he new service if mitigation is not possible (A

cancel th Avoidance);
b) allocate resources to reeduce the expoosure to the co nsequences off the hazards b by: limiting the payload
on the new
n ying additional fuel, obtaining
type, carry g type-specificc data from othher operators, training
operationnal personnel, identifying emeergency diverssion aerodrome es, planning forr an en-route aalternate
aerodromme, limiting opeerations during unfavourable meteorological conditions, ettc. (Reduction);
c) allocate resources to isolate the effects

e of the consequences of the haza ards by delayying the
introducttion of the ne ew aeroplane type, limiting eroplane with specific
g operations tto another ae
capabilities or requiring
g route qualifica
ation for flight ccrews (Segrega
ation).
5.4.63 Additional safety risk contro

ol/mitigation strrategies for spe
ecific operation
nal activities wo
ould typically be
e based
on the existeence, reinforceement or deploy yment of safety y (systemic annd tactical) defe
enses. Such de efenses are disscussed
extensively throughout this manual but generally refe er to deployme ent of policies,, processes, teechnologies, ssystems,
improved traaining or additiional regulation ns. Table 5-9 provides some e examples of organizationall and operation nal‐level
mitigation sttrategies for the
e operational hazards
h discus ssed in this chaapter. These a are examples rrelated to the sscenario
used in this chapter and no ot exhaustive lis
sts.
Table 5-9.
Example controls and mitigations
Operationally specific hazard Controls Mitigations
Insufficient type-specific fuel Cross divisional policy and process Flight planning software:
planning experience may result for new service:
in inaccurate or inappropriate: • precludes the planning of new
• precludes initiation of service service until SME evaluation
• total fuel calculation; until subordinate (divisional) complete;
processes complete;
• taxi and trip fuel • automatically defaults to most
calculations; • requires evaluation by a cross- conservative fuel planning
divisional team of SMEs; criteria;
• reserve fuel calculations
including contingency fuel; • requires benchmarking other • triggers data collection sub-
operators. processes used to support
• nomination of alternate future operational variations
aerodromes or alternate Flight operations department policy with the potential to improve
fuel calculations; initially requires a default to most operational efficiency.
conservative alternate aerodrome
• additional fuel or and fuel planning for the type.
calculations;
• discretionary fuel
calculations.
Flight crews unfamiliar with new Flight operations department policy Rostering software precludes the
route requires: assignment of roster including new
route to a crew member who has
• SMEs from current and not completed required
previous aeroplane types to familiarization training.
collaborate to create training
and familiarization materials;
• requires that line pilots

assigned to new route complete
familiarization training;
• service to be initiated by or
under the supervision of
specially qualified pilots.
Route near maximum range of Fuel and alternate aerodrome Flight planning software
the aeroplane planning policy requires safety automatically limits payload on
margins be maintained. aeroplane to maintain adequate
margins.
Where safety margins cannot be
maintained, flight operations policy
requires equipment substitution.
Example controls and mitigations
Operationally specific hazard Controls Mitigations
Meteorological conditions along Flight planning policy specifically En-route and destination
the route and at destination addresses en-route deviations for meteorological conditions and field
meteorological conditions and condition reports automatically
requires flight crew to coordinate forwarded to aeroplane en route.
with operational control personnel
for the purposes of re-analysis.
Flight planning policy identifies

weather conditions or criteria above
regulatory requirements that must
be met to initiate service.
5.4.64 In summary, the safety risk analysis, risk assessment and decision-making processes that are part of the
operational SRM subsystem of production should address each operational variation, be sufficiently sophisticated, use
the concepts of probability, severity and tolerability, and (in relation to each related operational activity):
a) interface with subordinate processes for hazard identification and analysis;
b) assess the likelihood that an unsafe event or condition might occur in qualitative or quantitative
terms of frequency of occurrence;
c) assess the severity of identified hazards if their damaging potential materializes during flight
operations;
d) identify the potential safety risks to a flight or series of flights;
e) determine the safety risk index for a flight or series of flights;
f) include processes for implementing appropriate controls and mitigation strategies to address
safety risks and to ensure such risks are managed to acceptable levels and in relation to target levels
of safety performance;
g) include processes for recording, classifying (taxonomy) and analysing risks;
h) include processes to record the outcomes of the specific safety risk assessments related to
alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning;
i) ensure flight crew and dispatch staff are made aware of any potential safety risks to a flight or
series of flights.
Note.— For additional and fundamental guidance related to hazard identification and analysis and safety
risk assessments, please refer to Doc 9859, Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.
Safety assurance — by operator
5.4.65 Safety assurance consists of a host of activities and processes undertaken by both the State and the
operator to determine whether the implementation of an operational variation is operating in accordance with
expectations and requirements. Practically speaking this requires the monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness
an operator’s safety risk controls and mitigation measures related to the specific operational activity.
5.4.66 In order to ensure safety, effective operator monitoring and measurement of a performance-based system
should be done through relevant safety indicators that continuously track system safety performance. As such, and to
complement the organization's SMS level safety indicators, it is necessary to define a set of measurable safety
performance outcomes to determine whether an operator’s system is truly operating in accordance with design
expectations. The definition of a set of measurable safety performance outcomes facilitates the identification of actions
necessary to maintain operational performance of a system in relation to alert and target levels of safety performance.
Measurable safety performance outcomes also permit the actual performance of activities critical to safety to be
assessed against existing controls, so that safety risks can be managed effectively in accordance with the requirements
of the State and the operator.
5.4.67 Practically speaking, this ensures that if controls and mitigations perform to an acceptable standard (e.g.
SPIs alert levels are not breached, improvement targets are achieved), that is, they bring safety risks into the tolerable
region, they can become part of the related operational system or process (e.g. alternate aerodrome selection or flight
planning). If, however, the controls and mitigations do not perform to an acceptable standard, then it will be necessary to
review SRM activities related to the operational activity. This typically requires the gathering of additional information and
data, and/or re‐evaluation of the operational hazard and the associated risks, and/or identification, implementation and
evaluation of new or revised controls and mitigations.
5.4.68 An operator’s organizational and tactical SRM components should continuously ensure remedial action or
adjustment in order to maintain safety performance. This requires an operator to implement the internal processes
necessary to continuously monitor or assess the safety performance of operational activities and validate the
effectiveness of safety risks controls and strategies. This also assists a State’s performance-based oversight component
to continually assess the actual performance of an operator’s mitigation measures against defined levels of safety
performance.
5.4.69 In order to monitor the processes or systems performance, the operator needs to gather information or
data through various sources such as auditing, surveys, incident reporting systems and safety reviews. The data
collected will then be used to develop selective measurable indicators. The indicators may be occurrence outcomes,
deviations or event types that indicate the safety or risk level of the process. These performance indicators are selected
in agreement with the Authority to minimize the expected versus the actual results of these performance monitoring
outcomes. This is discussed in detail in the next sections.
5.4.70 Another aspect is the application of quality assurance (QA) principles to SRM processes that will ensure
the requisite tactical and system-wide safety measures have been taken to support the achievement of safety objectives.
However, QA cannot by itself assure safety. It is the integration of QA principles and concepts under a safety assurance
component that assists CAAs and operators in ensuring the necessary standardization of processes to achieve the
overarching objective of managing the safety risks confronted during specific operational activities related to flight
operations.
5.4.71 As such, safety should be considered as a continuous, ongoing activity for the purposes of:
a) ensuring that the initial identification of hazards and assumptions in relation to the assessment of the
consequences of safety risks, and the defenses that exist in the system as a means of control, remain
valid and applicable as the system evolves over time; and/or
b) introducing changes in the defenses, as necessary.

5-40 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
5.4.72 Safety assurance is typically composed of three elements: sa afety performa ance monitorin
ng and
measuremen
nt, change man
nagement, and
d continuous im
mprovement. Th
hese are define
ed as follows:
a) Safety performance
p monitoring
m an
nd measureme ent requires op perators to devvelop and main
ntain the
means to
o verify safety performance
p and the efficacyy of safety risk ccontrols;
b) Change managementt is a formal pro ocess to identiffy changes wit hin an organization that may affect a
previously established process. Succh a process ensures safetyy performance e is maintaine
ed when
changes occur and modifies
m or eliminates safetyy risk controlss as necessary to maintain n safety
performa
ance;
c) Continuuous improvem ment is a form

mal process to o identify cause
es of poor perrformance thatt do not
meet thee specifications
s of an operattional activity a
and to determine the actionss necessary to
o ensure
safety pe
erformance me eets or exceedss expectations..
Note.— Plea ase refer to Doc

D 9859 for additional and
d extensive g uidance for th
he establishme
ent and
maintenance
e of a safety as
ssurance compponent.
Selecting Sa
afety Performan
nce Indicators (SPIs)
5.4.73 The selectionn of appropriatte safety indicators by an op eement

perator in agre
with the Staate and Authorrity is one of the keys to th he measureme ent and monito oring of
safety perforrmance of a sppecific performance-based sy ystem or proce ess. Such selecction Core activity:
is a function
n of the degree
e of detail requuired to repressent a level of system safetyy and Selecting safety
should enco ompass both high- and low w-level proces ss outcomes. Meaningful sa afety performance
indicators should be reprresentative of the outcomes s, processes a and functions that indicators
characterizee the safety of an operator’s system. Differences in natio onal regulation
ns and
operator flig
ght planning systems
s make e it particularly important tthat operators select
indicators that are meaning
gful in the conte
ext of their ope
erating environmment.
Note.— Actu ual historical da

ata gathered byb the operatorr, if available, will form the b basis of the in
ndicators
selected which would then n be plotted on n a trending graaph that trackss the specific fflight planning and fuel manaagement
(FPFM) proc cesses’ non-co onformance, de eviations, or oc
ccurrence outccomes. Togethe er with alert an
nd target levelss set for
each indicattor, the safety performance
p of that particula
ar activity can b
be monitored a and measured over a given p period of
time.
5.4.74 For example,, an operator in n order to veriffy safety perforrmance shouldd identify operaationally releva
ant high-
level/high-co
onsequence an nd low-level/low
w-consequence e safety indicattors which refer to the parame eters that charracterize
the level of safety of a particular system. As previou usly mentioned d, the potentiall outcomes of operationally specific
hazards can n provide the starting
s point fo
or the developpment of releva ant safety indiccators. With th
his in mind, thee safety
indicators th
hat may be us sed to charactterize the leveel of safety in alternate aero odrome selection and fuel p planning
b are not limitted to, occurrences such as:
systems typiically include, but
a) landings with less than final reserve fu

uel remaining;
b) flights wiith 100 per cen

nt consumption of contingencyy (plus discretio
onary, if appliccable) fuel;
c) minimum
m fuel states (as
s defined by th
he operator or a
applicable Auth
hority);
d) emergen
ncy fuel states (as defined by the operator o
or applicable Au
uthority);
e) flight dev
viations (or fligh
ht completion not
n accomplish due to inadequ
hed) on specificc city pairings, d uate fuel
supply;
f) flights that proceeded to an alternate aerodrome to protect final reserve fuel (alternate specified in the
OFP);
g) diversions to protect final reserve fuel (no alternate aerodrome specified in the OFP);
h) flights that proceeded to an en-route alternate aerodrome at decision, re-release or re-dispatch point
(flights that did not continue to planned commercial destination);
i) any other indicator with the potential to typify the validity or invalidity of alternate aerodrome and fuel
planning policy.
5.4.75 The safety performance of an operational activity is not typically related to the quantification of high-
consequence outcomes but rather to the quantification of lower-consequence outcomes (safety performance
measurement). Safety performance expresses the safety objectives related to a specific operational activity, in the form
of measurable safety outcomes of specific lower-level processes. It is the quantification of the outcomes of lower-level,
lower-consequence processes that provide a measure of the realistic implementation of an individual operational
process beyond accident rates or regulatory compliance.
5.4.76 For example, an operator could approach an Authority with efficiency concerns related to a prescriptive
fuel planning regulation applicable to its operations. The operator in our example is seeking operational flexibility in the
way it conforms to a prescriptive fuel planning regulation. The Authority, on the other hand, has concerns that have
arisen as the result of the outcomes or consequences related to undesired fuel states (e.g. diversions or low fuel states
that impact ATM or other aeroplanes), which have occurred in other operations it oversees.
5.4.77 The Authority, in cooperation with the operator and as a prerequisite to granting an operational variation to
the prescriptive regulation related to fuel planning, identifies the safety indicators in Table 5-10 derived from the
operator’s suite of available indicators for evaluation:
Table 5-10.
Safety performance worksheet
Safety indicator Occurrence rate Target
• Landings with less than final _____ instances per ____ Reduce to ___ instances per ____
reserve fuel remaining. operations operations
• Flights with 100 per cent _____ instances per ____ Reduce to ___ instances per ____
consumption of contingency operations operations
(plus discretionary, if
applicable) fuel.
• Minimum fuel states (as defined _____ instances per ____ Reduce to ___ instances per ____
by the operator or applicable operations operations
Authority).
• Emergency fuel states (as _____ instances per ____ Reduce to ___ instances per ____
defined by the operator or operations operations
applicable Authority).
• Diversions to protect final _____ instances per ____ Reduce to ___ instances per ____
reserve fuel (no alternate operations operations
aerodrome specified in the
OFP).
5-42 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
5.4.78 The safety in

ndicator values required to poopulate this woorksheet are typ pically determined over a preedefined
monitoring period,
p assume e prescriptive co
ompliance withh the requireme ents of the Authhority and mayy include a qua
antitative
analysis of occurrence
o rate
es for other opperators in the region. For ill ustrative purpo
oses, the Authhority and the o
operator
have establiished (during a recent monitoring period) that the conti ngency fuel re elated occurrennce rate was two per
10 000 depaartures. This rate is then taken
n as the baseline performancce.
Note.— This value is provid

ded simply for illustrative purp
rposes and doe
es not reflect th
he results of an
n actual
quantitative analysis.
5.4.79 It is important to note that any

a number of appropriate sa afety indicatorss (e.g. minimumm fuel states, d
diversion
rates) or a composite
c a applicable indicators (e.g.. total fuel pla nning processs failures) could
of all d be used to quantify
safety performance. For the purposes of o this example e, however, thhis value will bbe used to efffectively repressent the
current state
e of operator safety
s performa ance in the reggion and in relaation to the preescriptive fuel planning regulation. It
also represeents the basis for the definitioon of alert leve
els and targetss that would su ubsequently be e used to mana age and
monitor the performance of an operatio onal variation. It is also impoortant to note that although this example uses a
quantitative safety performance indicator,, such indicators can be expre essed qualitatively or quantitaatively.
5.4.80 Furthermore, once safety in ndicators havee been selected d for each corresponding ind
dicator, an “ale
ert” level
as well as a desired imp provement or “target”
“ level need
n to be seet. Such levelss define abnoormal or unaccceptable
occurrence rates
r as well as
s the desired or
o target rate for each indicato
or.
Note 1.— An ny references to qualitative or quantitative e safety indica

ators, alert leveels or target le
evels of
safety perforrmance are prrovided for illus strative purposes only. It is th
he responsibiliity of each Sta
ate, in conjuncttion with
the operatorrs under its jurrisdiction, to de
evelop such crriteria in a man nner commenssurate with the e particular neeeds and
complexities
s of the operatioons it oversees s.
Note 2.— Ad
dditional inform
mation related to the definitio
on of safety ind
dicators can b
be found in Do
oc 9859,
Chapters 1 and
a 4.
Establishing
g baseline safetty performance
e
5.4.81 In establishinng the equivallent safety performance of a specific ope

erational activitty, the State a
and the
operator mu ust consider suuch factors as the
t level of safety performan
nce provided b plicable) regulations as
by current (app
well as the cost/benefits
c off improvements
s to the system.
5.4.82 Also within each State, the safety perform mance for indivvidual operatorss need not be identical, espe ecially in
the matter of
o desired imprrovement targe et setting. In the case of an a alert setting, once the safetyy metrics (Mean n + SD)
criteria are adopted, they will be based d on the individual operator'ss actual baselline performan nce. Therefore agreed
safety perforrmance should be commensu urate with the complexity
c of a n individual opperator’s specifiic operational ccontexts
and the avaiilability of resou
urces to addres
ss them.
5.4.83 Establishing baseline perfformance for the t selected indicator (proccess or

activity) invo
olves collecting
g historical data
a for the indica
ators selected over a defined d period
of time. The en the mean (a average perform mance) and sta andard deviatioon (volatility) o
of the Core activity:
occurrences s are calculated which becom me the recent historical basseline performa ance. Establishing
The safety performance outcome
o of an
n operator’s prrocess would then be meassured baseline safety
against this baseline perfformance, befo ore and after implementatio on of performa ance- performance
based eleme ent(s).
Alert levels
5.4.84 After the definition of appropriate safety indicators and the determination of baseline safety performance,
the next step is to establish the parameters for tracking the occurrence outcomes or deviations that will ultimately reflect
the safety performance of each monitored system or process. This is done to set the performance range for each
indicator as well as to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable occurrence rates. This differentiation is the
key to setting the alert levels and targets used to maintain and improve system performance.
5.4.85 Alert levels are typically defined by the operator in conjunction with a monitored operational activity and
effectively represent the boundary between the acceptable and unacceptable values for a given safety indicator.
Practically speaking, as long as trend data within a given monitoring period indicate that occurrence rates do not exceed
the set alert level, the safety performance of an operational activity can be deemed “acceptable” for that period. It is
important to note that an alert level, when triggered or exceeded, implies that the occurrence rate around the alert period
has reached a significantly abnormal or unacceptable trend, with respect to the SPI's historical or baseline performance.
5.4.86 Alert levels should trigger actions that will restore the safety performance of the applicable operational
activity within limits and/or assess the likelihood that limits will be exceeded (if no corrective action is taken).
Target levels
5.4.87 A target improvement level, in contrast to an alert level, serves as the point at which to aim for a desired
improvement in safety performance to be achieved upon completion of a defined monitoring period. The fundamental
purpose of such targets is to drive down the incident rate of undesirable outcomes. With this objective in mind, an
operator in conjunction with the Authority could identify safety performance target values, which are long-term,
measurable objectives reflecting safety performance. Safety performance targets can then be linked to the (short-term)
safety performance indicators as defined by the operator.
5.4.88 Returning to the example from 5.4.76, baseline performance values are typically based on the operator’s
own historical performance data (unless the operator is new). It is from an operator’s own actual performance level that
subsequent (short-term) alert and target values will be set. Industry performance values may be viable as a long-term
target or benchmark provided the operator’s baseline performance is not already better than the industry average
(e.g. the occurrence rate for instances where contingency fuel plus discretionary fuel is fully used should be on the order
of 10-4 or less or ≤ one instance per 10 000 operations).
Note.— This value is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not reflect the results of an actual
quantitative analysis.
5.4.89 In this case the operator could define the following safety performance target value, in relation to its
baseline performance and in accordance with the requirements of the State’s civil aviation oversight authority:
• Within a specified period, improve by 5 per cent the baseline (average) mean value between the new
monitoring and previous monitoring period of instances of contingency fuel occurrences per
10 000 operations (1 x 10-4).
5.4.90 Safety performance target values indicate the desired state of a system and can be used by the State to
determine if improvement levels of safety performance are being achieved. With predefined alert and target settings, it
also becomes readily apparent to the operator that a qualitative/quantitative performance outcome can be derived at the
end of any given monitoring period. They also provide an operator with the criteria necessary to develop action plans as
the means to achieve the required targets. Such action plans typically include additional operational procedures,
technologies, systems and programmes to which measures of reliability, availability, performance and/or accuracy can
be specified.
5-44 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
5.4.91 Subsequently
y, the operatoor’s progress towards target levels of safe fety performance provides o objective
evidence forr the State to measure the effectiveness anda efficiency that the operrator’s safety risk controls an
nd/or its
mitigation measures should perations. The target level acchievements th
d achieve in op hus can be a re eference againsst which
the State ca
an measure wh hether the operational variatio
on results in a
an equivalent o
or improved levvel of complian nce with
the regulatorry requirements.
5.5
5 SAFETY OVERSIGHT B
BY STATE
5.5.1 States and operators havve different ro

oles in tactica
al SRM but share a
common goal: the basic objective
o being
g to ensure, to
o the extent poossible, the sa
afety of
flight operatiions.
Core activity:
5.5.2 The State through
t period
dic safety revviews and au udits monitors the Safety oversightt
effectiveness
s of an operator’s safety risk asures related to a
k controls and mitigation mea
specific operational activityy. In the case of
o performance ements it may not be
e-based require
as simple ass a fail/pass crriterion. For eaach requiremennt there may bbe varying deg grees of
compliance depending on n the complexiity of the proccess being aud dited. There mmay be a
challenge re
eaching agreem ment between the State and d the operator on the propossed alert levelss and/or seleccting the
most approp priate performa ance indicatorss. However earrly involvementt, regular overssight, regular interaction and d routine
monitoring would
w facilitate the audit proce
ess.
5.5.3 The CAA’s periodic

p oversight audits wou uld include asssessment of tthe FPFM pro ocesses and activities,
primarily the
e FPFM SPIs. This
T would follo
ow a thorough evaluation of tthe operator’s a
alert level brea
aches and/or th
he target
performance es achieved.
5.5.4 Another way to facilitate the

e audit process s is that when the operator d develops FPFMM process speccific risk
mitigation matrices, it could
d do so in conjunction with th
he regulator. Ass an example, Figure 5-10 reelates specific o
operator
actions to th
he safety risk index derived from an opera SRM compone
ator’s tactical S ent. Such assoociations betwween the
State and the
t operator with predefine ed actions ensure effective managementt of responsib bilities related to risk
managemen nt. This also ensures that the operator’s mitiggation strategiees perform to a
an acceptable sstandard.
5.5.5 In summary, the regulatory oversight proc cesses of the S State’s Authoriity should havee sufficient fide
elity and
sophisticatio
on to qualitative
ely and, when practicable, quuantitatively asssess the desig
gn and performmance of the op perator’s
alternate aeerodrome selec ction and fuel planning sys stems and rela ated processe es. The Authorrity should alsso have
sufficient access to the ex xpertise and kn
nowledge nece essary to assesss appropriate ely the overall safety perform mance of
the operatorr as well as th he operator’s ability
a to avoid
d breach of ale ert levels and meet improve ed safety perfo ormance
targets.
EXAMPLE ONLY
Risk level Operator action
Requires immediate action to

Unacceptable eliminate, reduce, mitigate or
transfer the risk.
Tolerable Requires action to control and

mitigate the risk.
Acceptable with May be acceptable — after

Review review of the operation; may be
acceptable with review by
appropriate Authority; requires
Acceptable
tracking and probable action.
Continue data collection,

trending, and continuous
improvement.
Figure 5-10.
5.6 SUMMARY
5.6.1 This chapter described the core criteria for capable operators and illustrated how such operators can use
performance-based safety data to support an application (safety case) for consideration to vary from an existing or basic
prescriptive regulatory standard or requirement. States should, however, carefully assess the operational capability of
each operator and the fidelity of their own oversight processes when approving variations. Additionally, prescriptive
regulations should continue to be used as the baseline for new operations until operators gain sufficient operational
experience to provide the necessary data-based safety performance indicators to support any variation considerations.
Figure 5-11 summarizes the process of developing and implementing performance-based variations.
5.6.2 The appendices to this chapter contain examples of the additional specific criteria, processes and safety
risk controls used by States and operators in support of performance-based regulations or operational variations from
existing regulations. The examples are excerpted from regulations that are already in use around the world and offer
insights to States and operators who wish to develop comparable operational variations. Together with the reference
material illustrated in Figure 5-12, the examples should provide sufficient basis for States and operators to determine
whether or not they are positioned to implement operational variations that require demonstrable capabilities as well as a
demonstration of safety performance relative to equivalent standards of performance.
5-46 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Variation develop
pment and ap
pproval*
• Ta
ake-off alternate selection
Operator identtifies operation(s
s) to which operational variation(ss) would • En
En-route alternate
e selection
apply. • D
Destination alternaate selection
• uel planning inclu
Fu uding; taxi, trip,
co
ontingency destin nation alternate fuel
f
an
nd/or additional ffuel calculations
Operatorr gathers and analyses available information and data.

Such saafety performance data should incclude SPIs that sshow • Q
Quantitative and/o
or qualitative
thee historical baseline performance
e of the system. • O
Operator or industtry
CAA assesses operationa

al, organizationa
al and SRM capa
abilities • Te
echnologies, sysstems, processes
s,
of
o the operator. po
olicies, procedurres
Operator coonducts a specifiic safety risk ass

sessment of the pproposed
operational activity.
a The proc
cess specific HIRRM (Safety Assesssment) is • H
Hazards identified
d/analysed
the key component of operato or's Variation Saffety Case submisssion. CAA • Sa
afety risks assesssed
may request for additional doocumentation to ana operator's Saffety Case,
as deeemed necessarry.
Operator se
elects and implements safety risk k controls and m itigation
• M
Mitigate safety riskks
measures thatt ensure no subs
stantial increase in safety risk to tthe flight or
• Set performance iindicators
se
eries of flights.
• M
Mitigation should p
perform to an
Operator an
nd CAA monitor effectiveness of controls and mittigations
accceptable standa
ard or be
through the process
p specific SPIs
S performanc
ce and operator aadjusts as
addjusted
necessary.
Figure 5-11.
*Note.— Appe endix 7 to this chapter

c contains a performance-bbased planning jjob-aid for use b
by an approving CAA. It summa arizes the
criteria that sh
hould be conside ered during the implementation
i of
o performance-bbased regulation ns or variations ffrom existing pre
escriptive
regulations.
ance 5-47
Annex 6, Part I
Doc 9976
D
Doc 9976
Appendix 7
Chapter 3
"Operational
"Operational
vaariation job-aid
rrealities"
for
f authorities"
Referencess to conside
er when
developin
ng, impleme enting
ICAO SMM
(DOC 9859)*
9
and/or app
proving operrational Doc 9976 6
"Overrsight variations
v Chapter 4
methods s, basic "Prescriptivve
SRM principles baseline""
and SMS"
S
D 9976
Doc
Doc 9976
Apppendices
Chapter 5
"Criteria
"C ore criteria for
requ
uirements for
capable
specific
operators"
vairiations"
Figure
F 5-12. Source
S referen nces to consid
der during de
evelopment
or ap
pproval of perrformance-bassed variations
s
*Note.— Doc 9859 is an inv valuable resourcee for guidance related

r to the d
design and appliication of the SR RM principles inntrinsic in
based system design.
performance-b d As suchh, it should be used
u as a sourcrce reference byy States and op perators alike duuring the
development and implementa ation of performa
ance-based varia election and fuel planning
ations to the presscriptive alternatte aerodrome se
SARPs of Annnex 6, Part I.
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OPERATIONAL

VARIATION FROM ANNEX 6, PART I, 4.3.4.1.2 —
TAKE-OFF ALTERNATE AERODROMES
1. INTENT OF PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF A VARIATION
The overall intent of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.2, is to minimize the exposure time to an aeroplane operating with one
engine inoperative by nominating a take-off alternate aerodrome within a prescribed flight time from the aerodrome of
departure. Operational variations may be necessary as many civil aviation authorities derive maximum take-off alternate
aerodrome diversion distances using a fixed speed schedule based on the maximum certificated gross mass of the
aeroplane.
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4, describes the means by which capable operators can vary from Standard 4.3.4.1.2 using
performance-based methods and a performance-based approach to regulatory compliance. This appendix addresses
the additional criteria requirements, processes, mitigation measures, safety risk controls and/or other demonstrable
capabilities specific to the application of a variation. They should be considered within the context of the core capabilities
and safety risk assessment activities described in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4, and Chapter 5 of this manual.
2. GENERAL
Overall, Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.2, specifies that, when required, take-off alternate aerodromes shall be located within
prescribed flight times considering the actual take-off mass of the aeroplane regardless of the type of operation.
Provisions 4.3.4.1.2 a) and b) further specify that a take-off alternate aerodrome shall be located at a distance equivalent
to the relevant flight time based on a speed determined from the aeroplane operations manual (AOM), calculated in ISA
and still-air conditions using the actual take-off mass of the aeroplane, the distance to be calculated being dependent on
the number of engines fitted to the aeroplane.
Lastly, 4.3.4.1.2 c) takes into account the operator’s extended diversion time operations (EDTO) that are unable to
provide a take-off alternate aerodrome within the distances prescribed in 4.3.4.1.2 a) or b) due to the physical
remoteness of the departure aerodrome from an available alternate. In such situations operators may seek to nominate
a take-off alternate aerodrome at a greater distance in order to allow for a planned EDTO.
In short, Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.2 a), b) and c) flight times and associated diversion distances are all based on a speed
calculated using actual take-off mass of the aeroplane. The AOM, however, may specify large variations in the
economical cruising speed dependent upon the mass of the aeroplane. For this reason an operator may determine that
an aerodrome suitable for use as a take-off alternate when the aeroplane is operating at maximum gross mass may fall
outside of the distance specified in the Standards when the aeroplane is operating at lower masses.
States having the knowledge and expertise to monitor and approve operator performance should consider allowing
competent operators to nominate a take-off alternate aerodrome for all operations (including EDTO) at a distance based
on a cruise speed obtained from the AOM using the aeroplane’s maximum gross mass provided the operator can
demonstrate that the time of flight to the alternate aerodrome shall not exceed that specified in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.1.2.
5-A1-1
5-A1-2 Flig
nd Fuel Manage
As the intentt of the Standa

ard is to minimiz
ze the exposurre time to an ae
eroplane opera
ating with one e
engine inoperative, the
operator wou uld need to demmonstrate that operating at a fixed speed scchedule would not adversely affect the operration of
the aeroplan
ne with one eng gine inoperativee.
In all cases the applicationn of a variationn should be ba ased on a safetty case presen nted by the operator to the A Authority
that would, at a minimum,, include the re esults of a spe
ecific safety rissk assessmentt addressing th he criteria of A
Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.4.4 a) through f).
f Additionally,, where the ap pplication of an n operational vvariation is con
ntingent on thee use of
other proces sses or method ds, the inter-rela
ationships betw
ween methods or systems sh hould be addresssed in operato or policy
and procedu ure. This is esp
pecially importaant as the mitiggation measure es necessary tto address a particular variation may
be imbedded d in other approoved processe es or methods (e.g.
( EDTO).
3. SPECIFIC CRITERIA, MITIGATION MEASURES A

AND/OR SAFE
ETY RISK CON
NTROLS
FOR OPEERATIONAL VARIATIONS
V FROM
F TAKE-O
OFF ALTERNA
ATE AERODROOME
SELECTIO
ON REGULATTIONS
States having the knowledge and exp pertise to mo onitor and me easure an ope erator’s
performance e should considder allowing caapable operato ors to nominatte a take-off allternate
aerodrome based on the use of a fixe ed speed sche edule. Such a pproval should d be Criteria specific tto
subject to th
he presence of core criteria for performanc ce-based varia
ations describeed in ake-off alternate
ta e
Chapter 5 off this manual and the following additional criiteria: aerodrome
selection
• The available informattion for the takke-off alternate
e aerodrome in ndicates
that, at the
t estimated time
t of use, thhe conditions wwill be at or ab
bove the
adequate e minima as prescribed by y the State o of the Operattor and in
accordan nce with Annex
x 6, Part I, 4.3.4
4.1.3.
• The operator has an en ngine trend moonitoring system

m in place. The
e allowable in-fflight shut down
n (IFSD)
rate shou
uld not be less than that spec
cified for EDTOO.
• The operator is able to maintain direc

ct two-way com
mmunications w
with the aeropla
ane.
• The opeerator should demonstrate thatt a failure of one engine

e will not ressult in a total loss of
redundancy for other airworthiness crritical systems.
• The max ximum distance e to the take-o

off alternate ae
erodrome doess not exceed tthat prescribed
d by the
State of the Operator.
4. TAKE-OFF ALTERNATE
A AERODROME
A SELECTION P
PROCESSES
States that consider allow wing operationa al variations frrom take-off allternate aerodrome regulatio ons should basse such
approvals on n the presence e of specific opeerator processes designed to o mitigate the p potential safetyy risks that could affect
a flight or se
eries of flights. In all cases the
e aim of the opperator’s intern al processes aand controls sh hould be to enssure that
there is, to th
he greatest exttent practically possible, no in ncrease in safe
ety risk to an aeeroplane departing without a take-off
alternate aerrodrome within n the exact distaance prescribeed in Annex 6, P Part I, 4.3.4.1.2
2.
An operator should not be e required to co

onsider multiple
e independentt failures when assessing the e risks associated with
such operatiions. Where, however,
h the fa gine will increasse the likelihoo
ailure of an eng quent failure that could
od of a subseq
affect the aiirworthiness off the aeroplanee, the operator should not o operate unless the take-off a alternate aeroddrome is
within the lim
mits prescribed
d by the Stand dards. Such de eterminations a are practically accomplished in operations through
the application of the aerop
plane Minimum m Equipment Lis st (MEL) or Coonfiguration Deviation List (CD
DL).
Operators who wish to vary from the prescriptive requirements of the Standards related to the nomination of a take-off
alternate aerodrome or nominate a take-off based on the use of a fixed speed schedule should demonstrate the
following specific processes in addition to those specified in Chapter 5 of this manual:
• Suitable alternates: A process to classify aerodromes that are suitable for use as take-off alternate
aerodromes. The operator should seek to nominate take-off alternate aerodromes that are as close to
the point of departure as reasonably possible.
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATIONAL

VARIATIONS FROM ANNEX 6, PART I, 4.3.4.3 —
DESTINATION ALTERNATE AERODROMES
1. INTENT OF PRESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA AND

EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF A VARIATION
The overall intent of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3, is to ensure to the greatest practical extent that a usable runway will be
available to an aeroplane when needed. This is accomplished using the prescriptive approach to regulatory compliance
by stipulating the conditions that trigger the nomination of one or more alternate aerodromes or the carriage of fuel to
wait for conditions to improve at an isolated aerodrome. The prescriptive approach, however, does not take into account
limitations of infrastructure, operational capabilities or other factors that may preclude the nomination of destination
alternate aerodrome(s) exactly as specified. Additionally, it does not recognize the multi-layered defenses deployed by
modern-day operators to ensure, to the greatest practical extent, that a usable runway will be available to an aeroplane
when needed even if a destination alternate aerodrome or combination of destination alternates cannot be nominated in
accordance with prescriptive criteria.
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4, describes the means by which capable operators can vary from Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3, using a
performance-based approach to regulatory compliance. This appendix addresses the additional criteria, processes,
mitigation measures, safety risk controls and/or other demonstrable abilities specific to the application of a variation.
They should be considered within the context of the safety risk assessment activities and capability assessments
described in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.4, and Chapter 5 of this manual.
2. GENERAL
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3, specifies when a destination alternate aerodrome should be nominated on the operational and
Air Traffic Services (ATS) flight plan. The State of the Operator may, however, in accordance with 4.3.4.4, vary from the
prescribed requirements of 4.3.4.3. The following guidance material should be used as an example by States when
considering operational variations from destination alternate aerodrome criteria and does not encompass every potential
variation that may be implemented by a State’s Authority or sought by an operator.
In all cases the application of an operational variation should be based on a safety case presented to the Authority by
the operator that would at a minimum include the results of a specific safety risk assessment addressing the criteria of
4.3.4.4 a) through f). Additionally, where the application of an operational variation is contingent on the use of other
processes or methods, the inter-relationships between methods or systems should be addressed in operator policy and
procedure. This is especially important as the mitigation measures necessary to address a particular variation may be
embedded in other approved processes or methods (e.g. single runway at destination associated with DP planning).
5-A2-1
5-A2-2 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual

AND/OR SAFEETY RISK CON
NTROLS
FOR OPER
RATIONAL VA ARIATIONS FRROM DESTINA NATE AERODROME
ATION ALTERN
SELECTIOON REGULAT
TIONS
States havin
ng the knowled dge and experrtise to monito or and measurre operator pe erformance sho ould consider a allowing
competent operators
o to nominate a des stination altern
nate aerodrome e under condiitions that varyy from the pre escribed
requirements of Annex 6, Part
P I. Such ap pproval should beb subject to th
he presence off core requiremments for perforrmance-
based variattions described
d in Chapter 5 of
o this manual and
a the followi ng additional ccriteria for:
• No-desttination altern nate operatioons to aerodrromes withou ut two

separate e runways orr without a nominated
n in
nstrument app proach
procedu ure: Annex 6, Part
P I, 4.3.4.3.1 a) requires thhe nomination oof an
e aerodrome where the planned destination does not have
alternate e two C
Criteria specific to
o
no-destination
or more e runways con nfigured such that if one runway is clo osed,
altternate operation ns
operationns to the other runway(s) will not be affeccted. Additionallly, it
prescribees that althoug
gh VMC condittions may be fo forecast, at lea
ast one
runway must
m have an operable instruument approacch procedure. It does
not, how wever, take into account limitations off infrastructure e or the
capabilities of the operator to assess the likelihood d that a usablle runway will be available a and/or a
landing can
c be accomp plished under VMC
V at the estiimated time of use.
Accordinngly, an operattor may seek to t vary from 4 4.3.4.3.1 b) to the extent neccessary to com mplete a
planned operation as long as there is s no appreciab ble increase in n safety risk to the flight. With
h this in
mind, a flight that is planned
p to ope
erate to an ae erodrome that has a single runway 1 or w without a
nominate ed instrument approach
a may be deemed byy a State’s Autthority to meet the intent of A Annex 6,
Part I, 4..3.4.3.1 subjec
ct to the applica
ation of the folllowing criterion
n, which is in a
addition to thosse for all
operationnal variations described
d in Ch
hapter 5 of this manual:
o An aerodrome
a is considered
c as having two se eparate runwayys if it has inte
ersecting runwaays and
the distance from the
t threshold to
t the point of iintersection, on
n one of the ru
unways with a sstraight-
in ap
pproach proced dure, exceeds the landing disstance requiredd, plus any required margin.
An addittional considera ation for no-altternate operatiions to destina

ations without sseparate runwa
ays is a
demonsttration, based on the outcom me of a speciffic safety risk assessment, that the opera ator has
mitigated
d the risk of thee runway not being available at the time of iintended landinng. Possible m
mitigation
strategie
es typically inclu
ude, but are no
ot limited to:
o The required minimma are based on the second d lowest minim

ma approach na
avigation aid a
available
and usable by the e flight. Where
e an aerodromme has only a single approaach navigation aid the
miniima are such as
a to allow the aeroplane
a to m
make a visual approach;
o The prescribed minima

m take intto account me eteorological p
phenomena, oother than ceiling and
visib
bility that could impact on the
e safe landing o ne. Such phenomena should include
of the aeroplan
the presence of thunderstorms and wind whiich, taking into o account the intended dire
ection of
land
ding, exceeds the aeroplane crosswind
c and downwind limittations;
o The runway lighting system ha as two separatte power supp plies. Where tthe runway lig ghting is
activ
vated by the aeroplane
a in flig
ght, an alterna
ative, ground-based means o of activation sh
hould be
prov
vided. Where the use of the ground-base ed means of activation wou uld result in a delay,
additional holding fuel should be e carried by thhe aeroplane ssufficient to co
over the period d of the
dela
ay or an alterna
ate aerodrome should be provvided;
1. A single runway, in this example,

e is a runway that has a straight-in
s instrum
ment approach att one end only.
Appendix 2 to
t Chapter 5 5-A2-3
o The aerodrome ha as prescribed letdown

l proced dures available
e. In the case of an aerodro
ome that
doess not have a nominated
n insttrument appro ach, or has on nly a single in
nstrument apprroach, a
visual letdown proc
cedure, approvved by the Statte, should be acceptable; andd
o The operator prov

vides additiona
al holding fuel to cater for a short-term clo
osure of the a
available
runw
way.
• No-desttination alterna ate operations s to destinatio

ons forecast tto below
VMC: Annex
A 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3.1 a)a 1) prescribbes that a destination
alternate
e aerodrome be e nominated iff an approach and landing ccannot
be accommplished at the e destination under VMC. An n operator mayy seek C
o
de
estinations forecaast
to vary from
f 4.3.5.3.1 a) to the extennt necessary too complete plaanned
below VMC
operationns to aerodro omes where th he meteorolog gical conditions are
forecast to be below VMC
V as long as
s there is no apppreciable incrrease in
safety risk to the fligh
ht. With this in
n mind a flightt may be perm mitted to
operate to an aerodrom me where the meteorologica al conditions arre forecast
to be les
ss than VMC, as a prescribed by the State iff at least two inndependent means by which h a flight
can condduct an approa ach are available that conform
m to one or morre of the following criteria:
o Two
o runways are available
a each with an operattional instrument approach;
o A ca
ategorized ILS should be con nsidered as two
o independent approaches p
provided the ae
eroplane
has two ILS receiv
vers available;
o GNS SS approach systems may be e considered a

as two independ
dent means, providing the ae
eroplane
is fittted with approv
ved dual receiv
vers;
o Whe ere approved by the State, an operator mmay utilize GN NSS capability as a substitute for a
grouund-based aid providing the aid
a is in commisssion at the tim
me of the approoach and the ap pproach
is co
oded in the aerroplane’s FMS (Note.— There
e is no requirem ment for the aid
d to be service
eable.);
o A GNSS approach h with vertical guidance

g may be considered d as being equiivalent to a CA
AT I ILS.
In th
his case the GNSS
G approacch should not be considere ed as two indeependent apprroaches,
unle
ess the aeropla
ane is fitted with
h approved dua
al receivers.
• Destinattions with CA AT III or CAT III capability: AAn operator ma ay seek

to vary from
f Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.5.3.1 a) to the extent necessary to
complete e planned operrations to aero odromes servicced by a CAT III or
CAT II instrument app proach when th he meteorolog ical conditionss are C
o
d
destinations with h
forecast to be below VMC as long as s there is no ap
ppreciable incre
ease
C
CAT III or CAT III
in safety
y risk to the flig
ght. With this in
n mind an operrator may not n need
to nomin nate a destinattion alternate aerodrome
a sub
bject to the pre
esence
of the folllowing criteria::
o The meteorologica
al conditions are
a forecast to
o be at or ab
bove CAT I m
minima for the time of
inten
nded use;
o The operator main ntains CAT III or CAT II auth applicable, for those fleets an
horization, as a nd flight
crew
ws to which this
s variation wou
uld apply;
o The intended destiination aerodro

ome has at leasst one operatio
onal CAT III or CAT II approacch;
o The operator has a process to ale

ert the flight of a change in m
meteorological fforecast.
5-A2-4 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
• Destinattion alternate operations as ssociated with h FAA OpSpe ec C355:

An opera ator may seekk to vary from Annex 6, Parrt I, 4.3.5.3.1 a a) to the
extent necessary
n to complete planned operatio ons to aerodrromes C
o
serviced by a CAT I orr II instrument approach
a when n the meteoroloogical operations
condition
ns are forecas st to be below w VMC as lo ong as there is no asssociated with FA AA
appreciaable increase in safety risk tot the flight. W
With this in min
nd an OpSpec 355
operator may not need to nominate e a destinationn alternate aerrodrome
subject to the presence
e of the criteria contained in th
he OpSpec.
Note
e.— FAA OpSp
pec C355 is inc
cluded in total iin Appendix 2 tto Chapter 3.
• No desttination altern nate operationns for operato ors that use D Decision Pointt (DP) Plannin ng: If an
operator uses DP planning and the e nominated d destination hass only a
single ru
unway or two different
d runwaays, a State m may permit the planned
operation
n without a re equirement to nominate a d destination alte
ernate
aerodromme provided the operator meets all off the requirem ments C
o
o
operators that use e
d for DP planning in Appendix
specified x 3 to this chappter and applie
es the
DP planning
following
g additional criteria:
o Desstination weathher minima: Th he operator sh hould ensure that the

meteeorological fore
ecast for any aerodrome
a useed for DP calcculations is
suchh that a reasoonable certainty y exists that a landing can b be successfully completed. In order
ensuure a reasonab xists it may nott be appropriatte to rely on a single NAVAID
ble certainty ex D for the
dete
ermination of operational minima.
m Wheree the State o of the Operattor does not specify
operrational minimaa based on the e use of two ind
dependent NAV VAIDs (see Notte 1) then the ooperator
shouuld establish op
perational minima that will acccount for an unnexpected NAV VAID failure.
Wheere the aerodrrome of intend ded landing ha as a single run nway or two d different runwa
ays (see
Note
e 2) the meteo orological forec
cast at the time
e of arrival sho ould not be lesss than the appplicable
land
ding minima ad djusted in both ceiling and vissibility as presscribed by the State of the OOperator.
Wheere the State of the Operator does not presccribe any adjusstment, the ope erator should a
apply an
apprropriate adjustment of not lesss than 120 m (400 ft) to the prescribed ceiling and not le ess than
1 50
00 m to the prescribed visibilitty.
h respect to th
Note 1.— With he two indepenndent NAVAIDss, satellite-base
ed navigation ssystems
may
y be used to me
eet these requiirements as ap
pproved by the State of the Op
perator.
Note 2.— In th
his example, a single runwayy is a runway thhat has a straig
ght-in approach
h to one
end of the runwayy. Circling to th
he opposite ennd of the runwway may be avvailable. Two d different
runw
ways is one run
nway with a strraight-in approa
ach to both end
ds of the runwaays.
o Alternate aerodromes associate ed with DP p planning: Where an operato or uses DP p planning,

proc cesses or procedures should be in placce to ensure the en-route alternate aero odromes
nomminated for usee prior to the decision are avvailable for the time of intend
ded use. The foollowing
operrational require
ements apply when
w nominatiing an en-route e alternate aerrodrome for usse when
utiliz
zing DP plannin
ng:
— The fuel on board

b the aerroplane is suffficient to reach h the nominatted en-route aalternate
aerodrome plus any additio onal holding fu uel required fo or meteorologiccal conditions or ATC
an approach plus fixed
traffic holding, plus any additional fuel req uired for the ccompletion of a
fuel reserve;
— The nominateed alternate ae

erodrome shou uld be capable
e of supporting
g the operation n of the
aeroplane, including the availability
a of taxiways, parkking areas, fa
acilities to dissembark
Appendix 2 to
t Chapter 5 5-A2-5
passengers an nd crew, requirred ground serrvice equipmen nt and any othe er facilities required by
the operator to
o facilitate the transit
t and sub
bsequent deparrture of the aerroplane.
• Single destination
d allternate operarations: Annexx 6, Part I, 4..3.4.3.2
prescribees the conditions that re equire two d destination allternate
aerodrommes be nomina ated on the operational and A ATS flight plann. An
operator may seek to vary from 4.3..4.3.2 to the exxtent necessary to C
o
ssingle destinationn
completee planned operations to aerodromes when a seccond
altternate operationns
destination alternate cannot
c be nom minated as lon ng as there iss no
appreciaable increase in h this in mind, a flight
n safety risk to the flight. With
may be permitted to operate to a destination ae erodrome witho out the
nomination of a sec cond destination alternate, under the cconditions
specified
d in the Standard, subject to the presence off the following additional crite
eria:
o The operator cond ducts a route-sspecific hazard analysis and ssafety risk asssessment to de
etermine
the potential hazarrds that pose additional
a safetyy risks to the flight;
o The operator mitig gates any safetty risks that re sult from the rroute-specific ssafety risk asse
essment
s reasonably practicable;
to a level as low as
o Wheere mitigation measures are

e not sufficientt to lower the safety risk to
o acceptable le
evels, a
seco
ond alternate aerodrome
a should be providedd.
• Two-des stination altternate operrations asso ociated with FAA

Exemptiion 3585: Ann nex 6, Part I, 4.3.4.3.2 presscribes the con nditions
that requ nation alternate aerodromess be nominated
uire two destin d on C
o
the operational and ATTS flight plan. The
T Standard, however, doess not operations
address conditional remmarks (TEMPO O, PROB, or B BECMG) conta ained asssociated with FA AA
in meteoorological fore
ecasts that are e below opera ating minima thus Exemption 3585 5
rendering
g a destination or alternate aerodrome un nusable for dispatch
purposess. An operatorr may seek to o vary from 4. 3.4.3.2 to the extent
necessary to complete planned opera ations to aerod
dromes when cconditional
remarks contained in meteorological
m forecasts indiicate that the a
aerodrome ma ay be below op perating
minima as
a long as there is no appreciiable increase in safety risk to
o the flight.
With thiss in mind, a fllight may be permitted

p to o
operate to a de estination aero
odrome based on the
presence e of conditiona al remarks thatt are below opperating minimma in the forecaast for the desstination
and/or firrst alternate ae
erodrome subjeect to the prese
ence of the follo
owing additiona
al criteria:
o Fore
ecast prevailing
g meteorological conditions aare at or above the operator’ss established op perating
miniima for the ope
eration at the es
stimated time o
of use at both tthe destination and alternate;
o A se
econd alternate
e aerodrome is nominated on the operationa
al and ATS flight plans;
o Connditional phrase
es in the forecast for the desstination aerod
drome must be e no less than half the
weaather minimum for the expectted approach ((e.g. if an ILS approach with h an 800 m [half mile]
visib
bility minimum is expected to be used, thenn the conditionaal remarks in the forecast cannot list
anytthing below 400 m [quarter mile]);
m
o Connditional phrase
es for the first alternate
a aerod
drome must be no less than h
half that require
ed to file
as an
a alternate;
o For the second alte

ernate, the worrst meteorologiical forecast co
ontrols.
4. ALTERNATE AERODROME SELECTION PROCESSES
States that consider allowing operational variations from destination alternate aerodrome regulations should base such
approvals on the presence of specific operator processes designed to mitigate the potential safety risks that could affect
a flight or series of flights. In all cases the aim of the operator’s internal processes and controls should be to ensure that
there is, to the greatest practical extent, no increase in safety risk to an aeroplane as the result of an operational
variation. Additionally, an operator should not be required to consider multiple independent failures when assessing the
risk associated with the operation.
Operators who wish to vary from the prescriptive requirements of the Standard related to the nomination of a destination
alternate aerodrome should demonstrate the following specific process in addition to those specified in Chapter 5 of this
manual:
• Suitable alternate aerodromes: A process to classify aerodromes that are suitable for use as
destination alternate aerodromes.
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLES OF REQUIREMENTS FOR FLIGHT PLANNING

PROCESSES THAT DEPEND ON THE ADVANCED USE
OF ALTERNATE AERODROMES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ANNEX 6, PART I, 4.3.6

The overall intent of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6, is to ensure to the greatest practical extent that sufficient fuel is carried to
complete a flight safely, allowing for planned deviations from the route in accordance with the balance of the criteria
contained in the SARPs. This is accomplished using the prescriptive approach to regulatory compliance by strict
adherence to regulations based on the ensuing SARPs that allocate and define the quantities of fuel to be carried.
The prescriptive approach, however, does not take into account limitations of infrastructure, operational capabilities or
other factors that shaped the development of existing national fuel regulations. These factors may preclude the
determination of total fuel required exactly as specified in the applicable provisions of 4.3.6. Additionally, the prescriptive
approach does not recognize the multi-layered defenses deployed by modern-day operators to ensure, to the greatest
practical extent, that sufficient fuel will be uplifted even if it is not allocated in strict accordance with the prescriptive
criteria of the SARPs.
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, describes the means by which such operators can vary from the applicable SARPs of Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.6 using performance-based methods and a performance-based approach to regulatory compliance. This
appendix addresses the additional criteria requirements, processes, mitigation measures, safety risk controls and/or
other demonstrable abilities specific to the application of an operational variation associated with the specific flight
planning methods described herein. They should be considered within the context of the safety risk assessment
activities and capability assessments described in Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, and Chapter 5 of this manual.
2. INTRODUCTION
Decision Point (DP), Pre-Determined Point (PDP) and 3% ERA planning methods are discussed in this appendix as they
are representative of flight planning methods already approved by CAAs and used by operators to address the minimum
fuel requirements of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6. These methods were independently developed by States and operators to
address many of the operational realities intrinsic to the determination of a national fuel policy. They illustrate a need for
operational flexibility and efficiency in flight planning that may prompt States to implement operational variations from
regulations based on the Annex 6, Part I, SARPs. With this concept in mind, the descriptions in this appendix provide the
operational context for the operational variations typically implemented in conjunction with such planning methods.
The descriptions that follow also illustrate the level of sophistication necessary during data collection and analysis to
support to DP, PDP and 3% ERA planning. The data collection requirements and quantitative data analysis methods can
5-A3-1
also be used by operators to provide the foundation for operational SRM activities while providing States with confidence
in the ability of the operator to maintain safety performance in relation to specified targets or levels.
The following descriptions of flight planning methods are provided for guidance purposes only since exact specifications
may vary and should be developed by operators in conformance with the requirements of the State. Additionally, the
following examples do not encompass every potential method that may be approved by a State’s Authority or
implemented by an operator.
3. DECISION POINT (DP) PLANNING
Aeroplanes that operate across routes approaching the limits of their range may utilize DP planning to maximize payload
uplift while maintaining acceptable levels of safety performance. DP planning is a system of flight planning used by
operators whereby an aeroplane is planned and filed to a destination via one or more decision points. Prior to crossing
each decision point the PIC assesses the aeroplane serviceability, the meteorological conditions, and any other known
factors that may affect the flight before deciding whether to continue to the aerodrome of intended landing or divert to the
nominated en-route alternate aerodrome. The system is applicable to both airways and free flight navigation
(Figure 5-A3-1).
Prior to the final decision point the aeroplane is always in range of at least one aerodrome that has been approved and
is suitable for use by the operator. Once past the final DP, however, the aeroplane may not have the operational
capability to divert to an alternate aerodrome. As such the aeroplane serviceability, meteorological and aerodrome
conditions should ensure a reasonable certainty exists that a successful landing will be completed at the destination or
nominated destination alternate aerodrome prior to crossing the final decision point.
With routine operations over long-range sectors, the accuracy of the destination meteorological forecast at the time of
departure is a significant factor in the planning process. DP planning can mitigate the effects of forecasting inaccuracies
as the aeroplane will receive updated meteorological information prior to crossing each decision point. The flight will then
continue to the destination on the basis of this updated information, which will have a higher degree of accuracy than the
reports originally received during flight planning.
To maximize the benefits of DP planning the calculation of contingency fuel is normally based on ”the advanced use of
alternate aerodromes” in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6 b) ii). Operator and flight crew policy and procedure
ensure that the loaded pre-flight fuel is managed by prescribing that, at all times, the flight after take-off has sufficient
fuel to reach a suitable aerodrome (destination or alternate) with required reserves plus the required contingency fuel. If
the minimum fuel requirements cannot be maintained, operator policy and procedure typically require the flight crew to
divert to the en-route alternate aerodrome.
Appendix 3 to
t Chapter 5 5-A3-3
Planned
d commercial d
destination
Final DP En-rou
ute alternate ae
erodrome
En-rou
ute alternate ae
erodrome
DP
En-rou
ute alternate ae
erodrome
DP
De
eparture aerodrome
Figure 5-A3-1. De
ecision Point (DP) planning
g
The following fuel calculation example illustrates how total fuel is derived to conform to the minimum fuel requirements of
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6. Total fuel is:
the sum of:
a) taxi fuel;
b) trip fuel (including fuel for foreseen contingencies — Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 b) from the departure
aerodrome to the destination aerodrome in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 b));
c) contingency fuel based on required trip fuel from the final DP to the destination and alternate
aerodromes, if applicable. This (contingency) fuel calculation is based on the “advanced use of alternate
aerodromes” in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6 b) ii) and may be capped to a maximum quantity;
d) fixed fuel reserve;
e) alternate fuel (if required);
f) holding fuel (where required by the State to account for known ATC and weather delays);
g) additional fuel if required to conform with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 d);
h) discretionary fuel if required by the PIC.
DP planning can be consistent with the nomination of a destination alternate aerodrome; however, over long sectors, or
in areas of limited infrastructure, DP planning may also be used as a mitigation strategy to manage the risks associated
with the planned operation. Where a destination alternate cannot be planned, DP planning ensures that the decision to
proceed past the last point of diversion is based on the latest available information.
The nature of DP planning and the operational context within which it is typically used may require variations from one or
more elements of alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning SARPs contained in Annex 6, Part I. Variations from
these SARPs are conditional on the use of DP planning within the context of operational and organizational SRM as well
as other incorporated prerequisites (systemic defenses) such as an in-flight fuel policy, an active flight monitoring system,
aerodrome surveillance, and dispatch personnel and flight crew training. It is important to note that DP planning requires
that at all times in-flight the aeroplane will have sufficient fuel on board to either continue to its planned destination or
divert to an alternate aerodrome while conforming to the operator’s approved in-flight fuel policy.
The decision point used by the flight crew is a calculated position. That is, it takes into account the planned fuel load on
the aeroplane as well as the operational requirements (meteorology and holding) at both the destination and alternate
aerodromes. In flight, the crew has the ability to move the decision point based on changes to the planned fuel load and
changes in the operational conditions present. In this respect DP planning is a dynamic planning tool that takes into
account tactical variations present.
Appendix 3 to
t Chapter 5 5-A3-5

AND/OR
SAFE
ETY RISK CONNTROLS FOR DP PLANNINGG
States havinng the knowled dge and expertiise to monitor and measure o operator perforrmance
should cons sider allowing competent
c opeerators to confo
orm to Annex 66, Part I, 4.3.6
6.1, fuel
requirements and 4.3.6.3 c) c using DP pla anning method ds and associa
ated methodolo ogies
for determinning contingenc cy fuel subjectt to the presen
nce of the core
e requirementss for C
Criteria, mitigation
ns
nd controls specific
an
performance e-based variations described in Chapter 5 of this manua l and the follow wing
to DP planning
additional crriteria. The ope
erator should:
• employ an
a FCM progra amme to monito or the actual fu
uel consumptio
on rates
of the sp
pecific aeroplan
ne utilizing DP planning;
• implement an in-flight fuel managem ment policy in accordance w with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7 that will
support the
t practical management
m off DP planning. The policy shoould include procedures thatt specify
ons to be taken by the PIC prior to the co
the actio ontinuation of tthe flight beyond the decisio
on point.
These acctions should in
nclude, at a minimum:
o obta
ain the latest av
vailable meteorrological foreca
asts for the aerrodrome of inte
ended landing;
o revie
ew the fuel sta
ate of the aeroplane to ensurre that there iss sufficient fuel on board to m
meet the
operrational requirements at the e aerodrome o of intended la anding. If the fuel on board d is not
suffiicient to meet these requireements, the PPIC should be required to d divert to the e
en-route
alterrnate aerodrom
me;
o revie
ew the mechanical state of the t aeroplane.. If any system
m defect existss that could po
otentially
affec
ct the ability off the aeroplane
e to conduct a ssafe landing att the aerodromme of intended landing,
the PIC should divert to the en--route alternatte aerodrome unless the sysstem deficiency would
rendder a landing at a the alternate
e more hazard dous than a landing at the a aerodrome of inntended
land
ding. If the deficciency would result in the sam me hazard being present at b both the aerod
drome of
inten
nded landing anda the en-route e alternate, the
e decision to co
ontinue to the a
aerodrome of in
ntended
land
ding or to divertt should rest with the PIC;
o revie
ew any other information
i applicable to thee aerodrome off intended land ding, including current
NOT TAM informatio on provided byy the operator’ss flight monitorring system or ATC. If the PIC is not
satis
sfied that a sa afe landing cann be complete ed at the aerod nded landing, the PIC
drome of inten
shouuld divert to the
e en-route alterrnate aerodrom
me;
o ensu
ure that suffic cient fuel is carried on bo oard the aero oplane to mee et all known holding
uirements at the en-route aerodrome o
requ or the aerodrrome of inten nded landing. These
requ
uirements typic cally include meteorological
m l conditions, h
holding and n nominated ATC C traffic
hold
ding. For exam mple, a State’s Authority mayy prescribe tha at where the foorecast meteorrological
cond
ditions will be below
b the applicable minima for a TEMPO period, an equ uivalent of 60 m
minutes’
hold
ding fuel may be eu of fuel that would be requ
b carried in lie uired to divert to a suitable a
alternate
aero
odrome. With respect to the e aeroplane’s arrival, a timme buffer shou uld be applied d to the
meteeorological connditions as app
proved by the SState of the Opeerator;
o cons
sider, in addittion to the fo orecast heightt of cloud ba ase and visibility, the prese ence of
meteeorological phenomena thatt could affect the safe landing of the aerroplane (for example,
thun
nderstorms). If such phenom mena are foreccast for the tim me of intended landing, the o operator
shou
uld ensure tha el is carried to either divert tto a suitable alternate aerodrome or
at sufficient fue
hold
d until the meteeorological phe enomena are forecast to ha ave abated succh that they no o longer
pres al of the aeropl ane.
sent a threat to the safe arriva
5-A3-6 Flig
nd Fuel Manage
5. DP PLANNING PROCESS
P AND
D PROCEDUR
RES
Operators who
w wish to con nform to Annex
x 6, Part I, 4.3.6
6.1 and 4.3.6.3
3 c), using DP p
planning
methods and associated d methodologgies for dete ermining conttingency fuel should
demonstratee the following processes an nd procedures in addition to o those specif ied in
Chapter 5 off this manual: Process and
pro
ocedure specific to
DP planning
• Nomination of the Decision
D Point: A decision point, based on the
planned fuel load and forecast mete eorological connditions, is spe
ecified in
the OFP P. The operato or should havee processes orr procedures tto ensure
that the route from the e nominated de ecision point to
o the nominateed en-route
alternate
e aerodrome meets
m all ATC
C rules. Wherre User Prefe erred Route (UUPR) proceduures are
available
e, the decision point may be e at any point along the route. Where UPR procedures are not
e, the decision point should be on a nomiinated airway available for u
available use by the aerroplane.
Once in flight the cre ew may recalculate the po osition of the decision poin
nt based on u updated
informatiion. In this cas
se the crew mu ust be able to determine the route to be flo
own from the d
decision
point to the
t alternate ae erodrome.
• Actions beyond the Decision

D Point: Once an aerroplane has pa assed the final decision point and the
aeroplanne no longer ha as an approve ed en-route alteernate aerodro ome within rang ge, the aeropla
ane can
continue to the aerodrrome of intended landing. Th he operator sh hould have proocesses or procedures
that address the action ns to be takenn in the event of any unforesseen deteriora ation of meteorrological
condition
ns, reduction in NAVAID availability,
a aerroplane system m failure or a any other eve ent that
increases the risk of no
ot achieving a safe landing. T These actions sshould be com mmunicated to tthe PIC.
vent that there is any increase
In the ev e in risk, the PI C should transsmit an urgencyy call (PAN PA
AN PAN)
even thoough the aeropllane may still la
and with greateer than the minnimum fixed fueel reserve.
6. ADDITIONAL DEMONSTRA
ABLE ABILITIE
ES TO REPOR
RT, MEASURE
AND ANALY
YSE ESSENTIAAL DATA
An operator that utilizes a DP flight plannning system should develop p processes to m measure
and analyse e data received from both ground-based
g sources and i n-flight monito oring of
aeroplane performance to verify the info ormation used in the plannin ng of flights. Th
hese Reporting,
data can the en be used to o identify deficiiencies in the flight planning
g or meteorological measuring, and
analysing data
forecasting systems
s that can
c then be co orrected or mitigated againsst in the event that
related to DP
correction is
s not possible. In all cases thhe aim of any data analysis p programme sh hould planning
be to improve overall fligh ht planning ac
ccuracy thereby ensuring tha at the aeroplane will
arrive with sufficient fuel on board at the aerodrome e of intended landing. In o order to
achieve thesse aims, the op perator should demonstrate
d th
he following cappabilities:
• the ability to report, measure

m and analyse the e essential data for the identification, analyysis and
mitigation of potential safety
s risks that could affect t he outcome off flights in acco
ordance with Ch
hapter 5
of this manual;
• an FCM programme to o monitor the actual fuel conssumption rates of aeroplaness utilizing DP planning.
Where th he actual aero
oplane fuel burrn exceeds the e predicted fue
el burn, the hiigher value shhould be
used in the
t computation of all flight planning data;
• where an n operator’s ae eroplane lands at an aerodrom me, and havingg passed the final decision point has
declared d an urgency situation exis sts due to a deterioration of the aerod drome meteorrological
condition ns, NAVAIDs or o facilities, the operator shouuld have a proccess to investiggate all aspectts of the
flight to determine
d if the
e planning of thhe flight was d
deficient. Where anning deficiencies are
e any flight pla
found, thhe deficiencies should be rem medied immedia ately.
7. PRE-DETERMINED POINT (PDP) PLANNING
The Pre-Determined Point (PDP) is another method of flight planning that ensures an aeroplane carries sufficient fuel to
complete a planned flight safely in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6. PDP planning does not allow the recalculation
of the pre-determined point and may in fact not necessarily aim to optimize the fuel use of the flight. PDP planning is
typically used to provide a control gate whereby the operator or crew make a decision to continue or divert prior to
passing the nominated point. Unlike DP planning where the decision point is a calculated position that will vary with each
flight, PDP planning utilizes a fixed point nominated by the operator. PDP planning is, therefore, a more prescriptive
version of DP planning wherein only one scenario allows continuation towards the intended destination when reaching
the pre-determined point. The method for the calculation of reserve fuel may also be based on the “advanced use of
alternate aerodromes” but differs from the methodology used in DP planning.
PDP planning is intended to be used where the distance between the destination aerodrome and the destination
alternate aerodrome is so great that carrying alternate fuel as described in the SARPs would not be possible. It may also
be used where operational requirements dictate that it is desirable to make a final go/no go decision at a point in time
after the aeroplane has departed. PDP brings the decision to divert to the destination alternate aerodrome back from the
destination initial approach fix (IAF) to the defined pre-determined point. When continuing beyond this decision point
towards the destination, fuel to fly for two hours at cruising altitude over destination may be required to mitigate
unforeseen safety risks associated with an inability to complete a successful approach and landing at the time of
intended landing at the destination (Figure 5-A3-2).
The following example of required fuel calculation illustrates how total fuel is derived to conform to the minimum fuel
requirements of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6. If an operator’s fuel policy includes planning to a destination alternate aerodrome
where the distance between the destination aerodrome and the destination alternate aerodrome is such that a flight can
only be routed via a pre-determined point to one of these aerodromes, the amount of usable fuel, on board for departure,
should be the greater of 1) or 2) below:
1) the sum of:
a) taxi fuel;
b) trip fuel from the departure aerodrome to the destination aerodrome (including fuel for foreseen
contingencies — Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 b)), via the pre-determined point;
c) contingency fuel calculated in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 c);
d) additional fuel if required, but not less than fuel to fly for two hours at normal cruise consumption above
the destination aerodrome. This is not to be less than final reserve fuel; and
e) discretionary fuel if required by the PIC.
or
2) the sum of:
a) taxi fuel;
b) trip fuel from the departure aerodrome to the destination alternate aerodrome (including fuel for foreseen
contingencies — Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 b)), via the pre-determined point;
c) contingency fuel calculated in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.2 c);
d) discretionary fuel if required by the PIC; and
e) additional fuel if required, but not less than:
i) for aircraft with reciprocating engines: fuel to fly for 45 minutes; or
ii) for aircraft with turbine engines: fuel to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1 500 ft (450 m) above
the destination alternate aerodrome elevation in standard conditions. This is not to be less than final
reserve fuel.
5-A3-8 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Planne
ed commercial destination
Pre--Determined Destina
ation alternate a
aerodrome
Point (PDP)
Note.—— If planning to an isolated

aerodroome, the last p
possible point o
of
diversio
on to any availa
able en-route
alternate aerodrome sshall be used aas the
pre-dettermined point.
De
eparture aerod
drome
Figure 5--A3-2. Pre-De

etermined poiint (PDP) plan
nning
Appendix 3 to
t Chapter 5 5-A3-9
8. SPECIFIC CRITERIA REQ

QUIREMENTS, MITIGATION MEASURES
AND/OR SAAFETY RISK CONTROLS
C F OR PDP PLAN
NNING
States haviing the know wledge and expertise

e to monitor
m and m measure operator
performance e should consider allowing competent ope erators to con nform to Anne ex 6,
Part I, 4.3.6
6, fuel requirem
ments and 4.33.6.3 c) usingg performance--based PDP fflight
planning me ethods and associated metthodologies fo or determining contingency fuel, C
ns
an
subject to the
t presence of the core re
equirements fo or performance e-based variattions
to PDP planning g
described in Chapter 5 of this manual an
nd the followingg additional cri teria. The operator
should:
• implement an in-flight fuel management policy in n accordance with

Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7, that will suppo
ort the practica l managementt of PDP planning. The policyy should
include procedures
p tha
at specify the acctions to be takken by the PIC
C prior to the co
ontinuation of tthe flight
beyond the pre-determ mined point. If an operato r’s fuel policyy includes pla anning to an isolated
aerodromme, the last po
ossible point off diversion to a en-route alternate aerodrome
any available e e should
be used as the pre-deteermined point.
• e criteria specified in Sections 3 and 4 of th

apply the his appendix fo or DP planningg although the State of
the Operrator may acceept some simpliification due to the prescriptivve nature of PD
DP planning.
9. PDP
P PLANNING PROCESS
P AN D PROCEDUR
RES
An operator,, when proposiing the use of a PDP flight pla

anning systemm, develops proocesses
and controlls whereby the data used d during the pre-flight pla anning and in-flight
managemen nt of the aeroplane have the required
r integrity to ensure th
he safe operatio
on of
the aeroplane. Additionally, an operato or’s PDP plan nning system demonstratess the Process and
p
procedure specific
following pro
ocesses and controls
c in addition to thosee specified in Chapter 5 off this
tto PDP planning
manual:
• the process and proce edures specifieed in Section 5 of this appenndix for
DP plannning, although the State of the Opera ator may acce ept some
adaptatio
on and simplific
cation due to th
he prescriptive nature of PDP
P planning.
10.
1 DEMONS
STRABLE ABIL
LITY TO REPO
ORT, MEASUR
RE AND ANAL
LYSE ESSENT
TIAL DATA
An operatorr that utilizes a PDP plannin ng system dev velops processses to measu ure and
analyse datta received frrom both ground-based so ources and in n-flight monitoring of
aeroplane performance to verify the info ormation used in the plannin ng of flights. Thhese Reporting,
data can the en be used to o identify deficiiencies in the flight planning
g or meteorological measuring and
analysing data
forecasting systems
s that can
c then be co orrected or mitigated againsst in the event that
related to PDP
correction is
s not possible. In all cases th he aim of any data analysis p programme sh hould planning
be to improve overall fligh ht planning acccuracy thereby ensuring tha at the aeroplane will
arrive with sufficient fuel on
n board at the aerodrome
a of intended landin
ng.
5-A3-10 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
In order to achieve these aims

a the operattor should demonstrate the fo
ollowing:
• the ability to report, measure

m and analyse the e essential data for the identification, analyysis and
mitigation of potential safety
s risks that could affect t he outcome off flights in acco
ordance with Ch
hapter 5
of this manual.
• the crite
eria requiremen
nts and mitigaation measuress specified in section 1 of this appendix for DP
planning, although the State of the Operator
O may accept some ssimplification d
due to the presscriptive
nature off PDP planning
g.
11. 3%
3 ERA (EN-R
ROUTE ALTER
RNATE) CONT
TINGENCY FUEL PLANNING
G:
3% ERA is a performance-based means to conform to Annex 6, Partt I, 4.3.6.3 c), w which permits contingency fu uel to be
determined based on the “advanced us se of alternate aerodromes” in accordance e with Annex 6 6, Part I, 4.3.6
6.6 b) ii).
3% ERA is similar
s ght re-planning in that it requires the manda
to in-flig atory selection in the OFP of an ERA locate ed along
the second part of the trip p and before the
t destinationn aerodrome. TThis designatioon of the ERA A is predicated d on the
qualitative and quantitativee assumption that, even if the e 3% ERA con ntingency fuel iis used before reaching the planned
commercial destination, the ere would be sufficient fuel on d at the ERA with final reserve
n board to land e fuel on boardd.
3% ERA dev veloped from th he quantitative determination that more con servative or prrescriptive plan
nning methods result in
e of excess fuel on long-haul flights. Such determinatio
the carriage ons are based d on continual monitoring off fuel at
destination for
f all flights to
o ensure, to thee extent reason ble, that future flights carry su
nably practicab ufficient fuel, in
ncluding
contingency fuel and final reserve
r fuel, to
o complete the planned flight ssafely.
12. CRIITERIA FOR PERFORMANCCE-BASED 3%

% EN-ROUTE A
ALTERNATE (E
ERA)
CONTINGEN
NCY FUEL PLA
ANNING
States havin
ng the knowledge and expertiise to monitor and
a measure o operator perforrmance
should conssider allowing competent
c opeerators to confform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3..6.3 c),
using 3% ER RA subject to the presence of
o the core requ
uirements for p
performance-ba ased
variations de
escribed in Chhapter 5 of this
s manual and the following additional criteeria. Crriteria, mitigation
ns
an
nd controls speciffic
The operator should:
to 3% ERA plannin ng
• employ a hull-specificc FCM progra amme to mon nitor the actu

ual fuel
consump
ption rates of th
he specific aero
oplane utilizing
g 3% ERA conttingency
fuel;
• implement an in-flight fuel managem ment policy in accordance w with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7, that will
support the
m off the 3% ERA aerodrome. T he policy shouuld give the flig
ght crew
specific instructions regarding the beest course of a ase when contingency fuel is totally
action in the ca
used beffore reaching thhe destination aerodrome;
• select an
a aerodrome for the purp pose 3% ERA A contingencyy fuel only w when the app propriate
meteorological reports
s or forecasts, or any com mbination there eof, indicate tthat, during a period
commen ncing one hour before and ennding one hourr after the estim
mated time of arrival at the 3
3% ERA
aerodrom
me, the meteo orological cond
ditions will be
e at or above e the operatorr’s approved p planning
minima;
• limit the use of the 3% ERA to meteorrological condittions at or abovve applicable la

anding minima
a;
Appendix 3 to
t Chapter 5 5-A3-11
• ensure the 3% ERA ae erodrome is located within a circle having a radius equal to 20 per cen nt of the
total flight plan distan
nce, the centree of which lie es on the plan nned route at a distance frrom the
destination aerodrome of 25 per cent of the total flig
ght plan distancce, or at least 2
20 per cent of tthe total
flight pla
an distance plu
us 50 nm, whichever is grea ater, all distan
nces are to be e calculated in
n still-air
conditionns (see Figure 5-A3-3).
Note.— Therre is no fuel calculation

c link
ked to the loca ation of the ER
RA. The locatiion of the ERA A in the
defined circlle allows by definition a safe landing
l at the ERA
E if diversio m cruise level during the second half
on happens from
of the trip.
13. 3% ERA PROCES

SSES
Operators who
w wish to con nform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6 % ERA should demonstrate th
6.3 c), using 3% he following pro
ocesses
and controls
s in addition to those
t specified
d in Chapter 5 of
o this manual:
• process and procedure es for determin

ning the periodd of use and th
hat define a me ethod of calculation of
the estim
mated time of arrival at the 3% ERA aero odrome. Duringg the period ccommencing one hour
before and
a ending one e hour after the time of arrivval at the 3% E
ERA aerodrom me, the meteorrological
condition
ns will be at or
o above the operator’s
o apprroved planningg minima. Thee period of use e of the
3% ERA A aerodrome sh hould also be specified on the
e OFP;
• processees or procedurres that addresss complete coontingency fue

el consumption (plus discretio onary, if
applicable) before reac
ching the destin
nation aerodrom
me including th e taken in the event of
he actions to be
such a situation.
s The PIC should als so have clear guidance on w when to divert to the 3% ER RA or to
another suitable
s aerodrrome.
14.
1 DEMONS
STRABLE ABIL
LITY TO REPO
ORT, MEASUR
RE AND ANAL
LYSE ESSENT
TIAL DATA
Operators wishing
w to conform with Annnex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c), ussing 3% ERA should
demonstrate e the ability to
t report, measure and an nalyse the esssential data ffor the
n, analysis and mitigation of
identification o potential sa afety risks tha
at could affectt the Reporting,
outcome of flights
f in accord
dance with Cha
apter 5 of this manual.
m measuring and
analysing data
re
elated to 3% ERA A
• egrity: Process
Data inte ses to ensure data
d used durinng ERA continggency planning
fuel calc
culations have the required in
ntegrity to ensu
ure the safe op
peration
of the ae
eroplane.
Radius equal to 20% DESTINATION AERODROME

of the total flight plan
distance = 732 NM
Circle centred on planned route

at a distance from the destination
aerodrome equal to 25% of the
total flight plan distance or 20%
of the total flight plan distance
plus 50 NM, whichever is greater
= 915 NM
HALFWAY POINT
Airways route, distance 3 660 NM

circle radius 732 NM, centred on a
point 915 NM from the destination
aerodrome
Shading indicates the areas in

which the en-route alternate
aerodrome should be located
DEPARTURE AERODROME
Figure 5-A3-3. Location of the 3% en-route (3% ERA) Aerodrome
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLES OF METHODOLOGIES FOR CONTINGENCY FUEL

CALCULATIONS USED TO CONFORM TO
ANNEX 6, PART I, 4.3.6.3 c) AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ANNEX 6, PART I, 4.3.6.6

The overall intent of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c), is to ensure to the greatest practical extent that sufficient fuel is carried to
compensate for unforeseen factors. Unforeseen factors are those which could have an influence on the fuel
consumption to the destination aerodrome, such as deviations of an individual aeroplane from the expected fuel
consumption data, deviations from forecast meteorological conditions and deviations from planned routings and/or
cruising levels. This is accomplished using the prescriptive approach to regulatory compliance by allocating five per cent
of the planned trip fuel or of the fuel required from the point of in-flight re-planning based on the consumption rate used
to plan the trip fuel but in any case not lower than the amount required to fly for five minutes at holding speed at 450 m
(1 500 ft) above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions.
Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, describes the means by which capable operators can vary from regulations based on Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.6.3 c), using performance-based methods. This appendix addresses the additional criteria requirements,
processes, mitigation measures, safety risk controls and/or other demonstrable abilities specific to the application of a
variation. They should be considered within the context of the safety risk assessment activities and capability
assessments described in 4.3.6.6.
2. GENERAL
This appendix examines methodologies for the computation of contingency fuel that may require an operational variation
in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6, in order to conform to the requirements of 4.3.6.3 c). Unlike Appendix 3 to
Chapter 5, the methodologies contained in this appendix may or may not be linked to specific flight planning methods.
Additionally, it is understood that any method for the computation of contingency fuel that results in an amount of fuel
that exceeds what is prescribed in 4.3.6.3 c) is sufficient to fulfil the overall requirements for the carriage of contingency
fuel.
3. STATISTICAL CONTINGENCY FUEL (SCF) PLANNING
SCF is a performance-based method for the computation of contingency fuel commonly used to conform to Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.6 c). SCF is based on “a data-driven method that includes a fuel consumption monitoring programme” as
specified in the Standard (see 4.3.6.6 b) i)). Practically speaking, SCF replaces fixed contingency fuel by an amount
sufficient to cover a specified percentage of flights against burning their entire contingency fuel. It does not, by itself,
protect against burning all fuel reserves. SCF is also commonly referred to as “Analysed Contingency Fuel” (ACF) and is
5-A4-1
5-A4-2 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
known world
dwide by a hos st of other acrronyms includinng but not limiited to CONT9 90-99, AEF, an nd COF90-99. For the
purposes of this appendix all such terms are functionallly equivalent in
n that they refe
er to a performa
ance-based me
eans for
the computa
ation of contingency fuel baseed on statistical analysis.
If an operato or’s fuel policy includes SCF planning, the amount

a of conttingency fuel o
on board prior tto the commen
ncement
of a flight is the
t greater of 1 or 2:
1. An amount
a of fuel based on a statistical me ethod approved d by the Statee which ensurres an approp priate
statis
stical coveragee of the deviatio
on from the planned to the acctual trip fuel. T
This method is used to monitoor the
fuel consumption on o each city-pair/aircraft com mbination, and d the operator uses these da ata for a statisstical
analyysis to calculate contingency fuel for that city-pair/aircraft ccombination;
or
2. An amount
a to fly fo
or five minutes
s at holding sp
peed at 1 500 fft (450 m), abo
ove the destination aerodrom
me in
stand
dard conditionss.

AND/OR
SAFETTY RISK CONTROLS FOR S SCF PLANNIN
NG
States havin
ng the knowleddge and expertiise to monitor and measure o operator perforrmance
should conssider allowing competent
c opeerators to confform to Annexx 6, Part I, 4.3
3.6.3 c)
using SCF subject to the presence of the core requirements for p performance-ba ased
variations de
escribed in Chhapter 5 of this manual and d the following
g additional criiteria C
ns
an
requirements. The operatoor should:
to SCF planning g
• employ an
a FCM progra amme to monittor the actual fu
uel consumptio
on rates
of aeroplanes using SC
CF.
• implement an in-flight fuel managem ment policy in accordance w with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7, that will
support the
m off SCF. The pollicy should give
e the flight cre
ew specific insttructions
regarding
g the best course of action in
n the case wheen contingencyy fuel is totally used before rreaching
the destination aerodro
ome.
• specify the statistical co

overage values s to be used. C
Coverage is the e percentage oof flights that burn less
than their contingency fuel. A covera age value of 955 per cent, for example, mea ans that 95 perr cent of
flights shhould arrive with
w and final reserrve fuel intact. As the
all their alternate fuel (iff applicable) a
coverage e value increa ases so does the required fuel, albeit d disproportionateely as the diffference
between 95 and 99 pe er cent covera age is not 4 p er cent fuel, b but an amountt that dependss on the
variability
y of the fuel consumption
c onn a specific ro
oute. One-hund dred per cent coverage impllies that
there is a low probabilitty of consuming all contingen ncy fuel. The ch hoice of covera
age values is ccrucial to
the succ cessful implemmentation of SCF,S and the operator sho ould have an approved pro ocess to
determin ne which coverrage (values ra anging from 85 5 to 99 per cent have been used) should b be used
dependin ng on the type of flight and the actual condittions such as:
Appendix 4 to
t Chapter 5 5-A4-3
Coverage value considerrations
• op
perations to des
stinations wherre diversions would
w be undes ired;
• av
vailability of en--route and/or de
estination alterrnate aerodrom
mes;
• adequacy of ATC
C infrastructure
e;
• number of usable
e runways at de
estination;
• field conditions at destination;
• thu
understorms orr other adverse
e meteorologica
al forecast at d estination.
5.
5 SCF PROC
CESS AND CO
ONTROLS
Operators wishing
w to conform with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c),, using SCF should
demonstratee the following g processes and controls in addition to
o those speciified in
Chapter 5 off this manual:
Process and
controls specific tto
• Data inttegrity: Proces
sses to ensuree data used in
n SCF computaations
SCF
have the required in ntegrity to ens
sure the safee operation o
of the
aeroplan
ne.
• Data usee and analysis s: The operato

or should have demonstrable processes
se the requisitte data and perform the callculations nece
to analys essary to arrivve at statistica
ally valid
contingency fuel values
s. Such processs typically add ress:
Statisttical fuel metho

od
• his
storical data co
ollection period required;
• ae
eroplane-speciffic trip fuel deviation data in re
elation to each city-pair and a
arrival time;
• ae
eroplane-speciffic fuel consumption data in ac
ccordance with
h Standard 4.3 .6.2;
• trip
p fuel deviation
n data correctio
ons for aeroplan
ne take-off masss changes;
• trip
p fuel deviation
n data massing to favour more
e recent data;
• the
e identification,, importance an o experienced ttrip fuel deviatiions from the a
nd frequency of average;
• the
e identification,, importance an
nd frequency of
o experienced prolonged pre--take-off taxi tim
mes;
• dis
stribution of eac
ch grouping of trip fuel deviattion data and n umber of stand
dard deviationss applied;
• the
e mean for eac
ch grouping of trip
t fuel deviatio
on data;
• confidence limits of the distributtion (e.g. 90 pe

er cent, 95 per cent and 99 pe
er cent);
5-A4-4 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
Statisttical fuel metho

od
• de
etailed instructio
ons for the calc
culation of trip fuel
f variation a
and coverage vvalues for confid
dence limits;
• criteria for exclud

ding unfavourab
ble data and/orr outliers;
• rec
current operational circumsta
ances (frequency or cycles) rrequiring increa
ased fuel conssumption such as
seasonal changees;
• pro
ocedures to en
nsure errors do not enter the computation
c prrocess; and
• the
e calculation off contingency fu
uel on the day of use.
• Process s review: It is essential to review the funcctioning of the

e system regularly. In particu ular, the
overage value for each type//sector combin
actual co nation should bbe reviewed re egularly to ensure that
the desiggned coverage e values are being
b obtained
d. The review interval should d be short enough to
ensure timely
t intervention, but not to
oo short to bee skewed by ssmall sample ssizes. A period d of one
month iss typical for da
aily operations, but a quarterr may be more e appropriate ffor lesser frequuencies.
The proccess should als so contain a method
m accepta
able to the Statte to normalize
e the data for vvariation
in planne
ed route lengthh and an acceptable method o of massing morre recent data versus older.
• Processs failures: Faailures to ach

hieve the req
quired coverag
ge levels sho
ould be invesstigated,
understo
ood and correctted.
6. ADDITIONAL DEMONSTRA
ABLE ABILITIE
ES TO REPOR
RT, MEASURE
AND ANALY
YSE ESSENTIAAL DATA
Operators wishing
w to conform with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c),, using SCF should
demonstrate e the ability tot report, measure and an nalyse the esssential data ffor the
n, analysis and mitigation of
identification o potential sa afety risks tha
at could affectt the Reporting,
outcome of flights
f in accorrdance with Ch hapter 5 of this manual. Suchh processes sh hould measuring and
be sufficienttly sophisticate
ed to collect the
e large volume nd operational data
es of safety an analysing data
necessary to o support effecctive SRM, SCF calculations and other app plicable operatiional related to SCF
processes. TheT operator should
s also deemonstrate the e following cappabilities prior to the
commencem ment of operatioons that use SCCF:
• for a given city-pair/aeroplane combination, data sh hould be colleccted over a sig

gnificant period
d of time
or numbe er of flights (e.g. one or two years
y or 60 to 100 flights) approved or acce
epted by the Sttate that
will permmit statisticallyy valid conclu usions to be drawn. The data to be collected sho ould be
represenntative of seasonal conditions s and other knnown recurrentt changes likely to affect operations
and typiccally include in relation to eac
ch city-pair:
Data
D in relation
n to each city-pa
air Aeroplane sspecific data
• rou
ute • planned zero
o fuel mass;
• en-route time (sp

peeds) • actual fuel up
plift;
• tim
me spent holdin
ng; • actual departture fuel;
Data in relation to each city-pair Aeroplane specific data
• actual versus planned SID/STAR • planned trip fuel;

ground track flown (including portion of
Point Merge STAR actually flown, if • trip fuel used;
applicable);
• planned reserve/contingency fuel;
• destination meteorological below
forecast conditions; • reserve/contingency fuel used;
• missed approaches; • planned flight distance;
• additional approaches; • planned flight time;
• proceeding to alternate; • actual arrival fuel corrected for taxi-in time;
• MEL/CDL factors. • fuel remaining at the alternate aerodrome arrival gate;
• fuel consumption history for each specific aeroplane

number;
• average fuel consumption history by aeroplane type:
— same day last week;
— same day last month;
— same day last year.
Note.— These are recommended data points only. Actual data points may vary based on the availability of
data for collection and analysis.
7. B043 PLANNING — SPECIAL FUEL RESERVES IN INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
B043 planning is a performance-based method used in the United States which conforms to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 c)
fuel requirements. It is based on a qualitative and quantitative determination that more conservative or prescriptive
planning methods result in the carriage of excess fuel on long-haul flights without appreciably increasing safety
performance. Such determinations are based on continual monitoring of fuel at destination for all flights to ensure, to the
extent reasonably practicable, that future flights carry sufficient fuel, including contingency fuel and final reserve fuel, to
complete the planned flight safely and allow for planned deviations from the route.
B043 planning requires each aeroplane used by an operator to have enough fuel on board, considering wind and other
meteorological conditions forecast, anticipated traffic delays, one instrument approach and possible missed approach at
destination, and any other conditions that may delay landing of the aeroplane to accomplish all of the following:
1. fly to and land at the aerodrome to which it is dispatched or released;
2. additionally, to fly for a period of ten per cent of that portion of the en-route time (between the
departure aerodrome and the aerodrome to which it was released) where the aeroplane's position
cannot be “reliably fixed” at least once each hour;
5-A4-6 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
3. additiona
ally, to fly to an
nd land at the most
m distant altternate aerodro
ome specified in the dispatch or flight
release, as applicable, (if an alternatee is required);
4. ally, to fly for 45

additiona 5 minutes at no
ormal cruising ffuel consumptiion.
8. SPECIFIC CRITERIA, MITIGATION MEASURES AAND/OR SAFE

ETY RISK CON
NTROLS
FOR B043
B PLANNIN
NG
States havin
ng the knowleddge and expertiise to monitor and measure o operator perforrmance
may consideer allowing com
mpetent operato ors to conform to Annex 6, P
Part I, 4.3.6.3 c)), using
a process similar
s to B0433 planning sub bject to the presence of thee following criiteria
requirements in addition to nual. The operator
o those speciffied in Chapterr 5 of this man C
ns
an
should:
B043 planning
• employ an
uel consumptio
on rates
of the sp
pecific aeroplan
ne utilizing B04
43 contingency fuel;
• implement an in-flight fuel

f manageme ent policy in acccordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7, that g
gives the
flight cre
ew specific insttructions regard when contingency fuel
ding the best ccourse of action in the case w
is totally used before re
eaching the des stination aerod drome;
• require flight crews to o report imme ediately to thee flight operaations officer ((or flight follow
wer, as
applicable) any time th he estimated tiime of arrival aat the destinattion exceeds fiifteen minutes beyond
the flightt plan ETA, the
e cruise altitude
e varies by 1 2
200 m (4 000 ftt) or more from
m the flight plan n, or the
aeroplan ne deviates more than 100 nm m from the fligh
ht-planned route e.
The operator is required to

o report to the State
S any declaarations of eme
ergency fuel (M
MAYDAY MAYD DAY MAYDAY Y FUEL).
Additionally, the operator will
w report any occurrence off a low fuel sta ate (MINIMUM M FUEL declara
ation) which re
esults in
actions being taken by ATC C and/or dispattch, even if no emergency is d
declared.
Note.— This phraseology reeflects the new

w, fuel-related, ICAO phraseo
ology. See Cha
apter 6 for guida
ance on
minimum fue
el and emergen
ncy fuel declara
ations.
9. B0
043 PLANNING
G PROCESS A
AND CONTRO LS
United State
es operators wishing
w to confo
orm with Annexx 6, Part I, 4.33.6.3 c), using B043 planning
g need to demo
onstrate
processes and controls sim
milar to those specified in Cha
apter 5 of this m
manual.
10. DEMONS
STRABLE ABIL
LITY TO REPO
ORT, MEASUR
RE, AND ANAL
LYSE ESSENT
TIAL DATA
United State es operators wiishing to conform with Annex x 6, Part I, 4.3.6

6.3 c), using B 043 planning w
would demonsttrate the
ability to rep
port, measure and
a analyse the essential datta for the identtification, analyysis and mitigation of potentia
al safety
risks that could affect the outcome
o of fligh
hts in accordan
nce with Chapte er 5 of this man
nual.
Appendix 4 to
t Chapter 5 5-A4-7
11. B343 PLA

ANNING — FU
UEL RESERVE
ES FOR FLAG AND SUPPLE
EMENTAL OPE
ERATIONS
B343 planning is a perform mance-based method

m used in the United SStates in accorrdance with Annnex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6,
that is used to conform to o Annex 6, Parrt I, 4.3.6.3 c) fuel requireme ents. B343 plaanning is based d on a qualitattive and
quantitative determination that more conservative or prrescriptive plan nning methods result in the ccarriage of exccess fuel
on long-hau ul flights withou
ut appreciably increasing safety performan nce. Such dete erminations arre based on ccontinual
monitoring ofo fuel at destination for all flights
f to ensurre, to the exte
ent reasonably practicable, thhat future fligh
hts carry
sufficient fue
el, including contingency fue el and final reserve fuel, to complete the planned flightt safely and a allow for
planned dev viations from the route.
B343 planning requires ea ach aeroplane used

u by an operator to have enough fuel o on board, consiidering wind an nd other
meteorologiccal conditions forecast,
f anticipated traffic de
elays, one instrrument approaach and possible missed apprroach at
destination, and any other conditions thatt may delay lan nding of the aerroplane to acco
omplish all of the following:
1. d land at the ae
fly to and erodrome to wh
hich it is dispattched or releas ed;
2. additiona
ally, to fly for a period of five per cent oof that portion of the en-rou
ute time (betwe
een the
departure aerodrome and a the aerodrome to which h it was releassed) where the
e aeroplane's position
cannot be
b “reliably fixed
d” at least once
e each hour;
3. additiona
ally, to fly to an
nd land at the most
m distant altternate aerodro
ome specified in the dispatch or flight
release, as applicable (if( an alternate is required);
4. ally, to fly for 30

additiona 0 minutes at no
ormal cruising ffuel consumptiion.
12.
1 CRITERIA
A FOR B343 P
PLANNING
States havinng the knowled dge and expertiise to monitor and measure ooperator perforrmance
may conside er allowing commpetent operators to conformm to Annex 6, PPart I, 4.3.6.3 cc) using
a process similar
s to B343
3 planning subbject to the presence of the e following criiteria
requirements in addition to o those specifie al and the follo wing
ed in Chapter 5 of this manua C
ns
an
additional crriteria. The ope
erator should:
B043 planning
• employ an
uel consumptio
on rates
of the sp
pecific aeroplan
ne utilizing Spe el Reserve conttingency
ecial Flag Fue
fuel;
• implement an in-flight fuel

f manageme ent policy in acccordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7, that g
gives the
flight cre ding the best ccourse of action in the case w
ew specific insttructions regard when contingency fuel
is totally used before re
eaching the des stination aerod drome;
• proved procedu
have app ures to maintaiin a flight moniitoring and reco ording system that requires tthe flight
crew and
d flight operatio
ons officer or flight follower, a o verify, at leasst once each h
as applicable, to hour, the
aeroplan
ne’s position, ro
oute, altitude and fuel on boa ard compared tto flight-planned fuel on board d at that
point;
• ensure all
a fuel indicatinng and monitoring systems arre operational a
at dispatch or rrelease, as app plicable.
Any en-rroute failure of these systems
s should be imm
mediately reported to dispatch h or flight-follow
wing, as
applicable;
5-A4-8 Flig
nd Fuel Manage
• require flights using B3

343 to:
— e flight is sche
if the eduled for more
e than six hourrs, list in the dispatch or fligh
ht release at le
east one
desiignated alterna ate aerodrome for the destinattion aerodrome e;
— ensuure appropriatee meteorologic cal reports or fforecasts or an

ny combination n thereof indiccate that
ed IFR approacch and landing minima
the meteorologicall conditions will be at or abovve the authorize
at th
he estimated tim me to which the flight is dispattched or released;
me of arrival att any aerodrom
— ensuure appropriatee meteorologiccal reports or fforecasts or anny combinationn thereof indiccate that
the meteorologicall conditions will be at or abovve the authorize
ed alternate ae
erodrome IFR w weather
miniima at the estim
mated time of arrival
a at any re
equired alterna
ate aerodrome;
• require flight crews to o report imme ediately to the e flight operaations officer ((or flight follow
wer, as
applicable) any time th he estimated tiime of arrival a at the destinattion exceeds fiifteen minutes beyond
the flightt plan ETA, the
e cruise altitude
e varies by 1 2200 m (4 000 ftt) or more from
m the flight plan n, or the
aeroplan ne deviates more than 100 nm m from the fligh
ht-planned route e.
• if any of the required reports

r indicate
e that en-routee reserve fuel w will be consum med, communiccate this
immediately to the fligh ht crew and to o the flight ope rations officer or flight follow
wer, as applicabble, and
agree to o continuation ofo the flight orr deviation. Bo
oth flight crewss and the flight operations o officer or
flight follo
ower, as applic
cable, should reecord all requirred reports unttil completion oof the flight.
• if any po
ortion of the en
n-route reservee fuel is consu
umed, record th his, retain the information an
nd notify
the appliicable Authority of the occurrence. Both a primary and ssecondary meth hod of commu unicating
any requ hould be available for the enti re route of fligh
uired reports sh ht.
• prohibit the
t use of B34
43 when flights
s are re-planne
ed or re-dispatcched in accord
dance with App
pendix 4
of this manual.
13. 343 PLANNING

B3 G PROCESS A
AND CONTRO
OLS
United State
es operators wishing to confo orm to Annex 6,6 Part I, 4.3.6..3 c), using B0
0343 reserve fu
uel would demo
onstrate
the processe
es and controls se specified in Chapter 5 of th
s similar to thos his manual.
14.
1 DEMONS
STRABLE ABIL
LITY TO REPO
ORT, MEASUR
RE AND ANAL
LYSE ESSENT
TIAL DATA
United State es operators wishing

w to confform with Anne ex 6, Part I, 4 .3.6.3 c), using
g B343
should demo onstrate the ability to report,, measure and d analyse the e essential data for the
identification
n, analysis and mitigation of o potential sa afety risks thaat could affectt the Reporting,
outcome of flights
f in accord
dance with Cha apter 5 of this manual
m and; measuring and
analysing data
related to B343
• use accuurate meteorological data inncluding destinnation and alte ernate planning
aerodrom
me forecasts, and upper wind w informatio
on equal to o or more
accurate
e than 1.25 grid
d data should be
b used for the entire flight pla
an route.
— — — — — — — —
EXAMPLE OF A FUEL CONSUMPTION MONITORING (FCM)

PROGRAMME USED TO CONFORM TO ANNEX 6, PART I,
4.3.6.2 a) AND/OR ANNEX 6, PART I, 4.3.6.6 b)
1. GENERAL
The application of scientific methods to actual aeroplane performance brings a higher degree of accuracy to expected
aeroplane performance. This appendix contains guidance for the establishment of a hull-specific FCM programme. Such
programmes are used extensively to ensure actual fuel use approximates planned fuel use within an acceptable margin
of error. The assumption is that operators with the means and resources to measure and analyse sufficient historical
data to arrive at valid statistical projections are better equipped to make fact-based determinations during fuel planning.
The data collection and analysis tools used in FCM take into account the many variables and data points used to
determine aeroplane specific fuel burn. This process of quantitative analysis can also be used to complement the many
qualitative tools used in safety analysis to arrive at statistically valid conclusions. As a result, States with performance-
based approaches to regulatory compliance and the ability to oversee such complex activities may be more confident in
an operator that uses such advanced techniques to continually achieve target levels of safety performance.
The following programme description is provided for guidance purposes only. Exact specifications may vary and are
typically developed by individual operators in conformance with the requirements of the State. If designed and
implemented properly, these programmes and other statistically-based fuel use programmes represent systemic
defenses against operational safety risks associated with alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning.
The following example also illustrates the level of sophistication required of data collection and analysis processes. Such
sophistication is not only necessary to support FCM implementation but is also desirable when incorporating such
programmes into an operator’s SMS, if applicable. It is important to note that the data collection requirements and
quantitative data analysis methods used in FCM are one of the hallmarks of an operator that has the resources to form
the foundation for the development of an SMS.
2. FUEL CONSUMPTION MONITORING (FCM)
FCM, also commonly referred to as hull-specific fuel bias, refers to the processes of comparing an aeroplane’s achieved
in-flight performance to that of the aeroplane’s predicted performance. Variations between the achieved performance
and the predicted performance will result in a variation of the rate of fuel consumption which should be accounted for by
the operator during flight planning and in flight.
Poor airframe condition results in an increase in overall drag. Poorly fitting hatches, surface imperfections such as dents
and scratches and deterioration of fairings and other airflow control devices can all contribute to the increase in drag.
Additionally engine wear, including fan blade erosion and damage, fan rub-strip wear and accumulation of dirt can
increase an engine’s specific fuel consumption (SFC).
5-A5-1
5-A5-2 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
All of these factors

f typically
y contribute to a decrease in an aeroplane’ss Specific Air RRange (SAR). Conversely, in-service
aeroplane and engine mod difications can improve an ae eroplane’s SAR R. A hull-specific FCM prograamme accountts for all
such variatio
ons from baseline performanc ce. An operatoor may elect to
o use FCM in a accordance witth the following
g criteria
requirements and as part of the larger systemic defens ses or risk mit igation strategies used when
n seeking varia ations to
the SARPs.
3. CRITERIA FO
OR AN FCM PR
ROGRAMME
An operator’’s FCM program

mme demonstrrates the follow
wing criteria:
• FCM re efers to the determination of an indivvidual aeropla ane’s

performaance from the predicted
p ormance. In no cases should data
perfo C
Criteria for an FCM
M
collected
d from one aerroplane be useed as a basis ffor varying ano
other programme
aeroplanne’s performanc
ce figures away from the preddicted value;
• data useed in the determ

mination of the aeroplane’s acctual performan
nce are
collected
d in a manner acceptable
a to th
he State;
• data use
ed in the deterrmination of the
e aeroplane’s predicted perfformance are d
derived from a source
acceptab
ble to the State
e;
• data useed in the dete ermination of thet aeroplane’’s actual perfo

ormance are ccollected contiinuously
during ro
outine line operrations of the aeroplane;
a
• data use
ed in the determ
mination of the
e aeroplane’s a
actual performaance should be e based on Ae
eroplane
Stable Frame
F (ASF) re
eadings. If ASF readings aree not available
e then the data a may be baseed on a
son of planned burn versus actual burn achiieved over indiividual sectors;;
comparis
• if ASF reeadings are noot used, the operator should d exclude all ssectors where in-flight environmental
condition
ns may result in n of erroneous data. The ope
n the collection erator should b
be able to demo onstrate
to the State how such sectors
s are exccluded from the
e data collectio
on;
• data useed in the deterrmination of the aeroplane’s actual perform mance should b be the average e of the
data colllected over a minimum
m numb ber of data poiints that will sttatistically ensu
ure the integritty of the
data useed (a minimum of 50 data poin nts or the equivvalent of a caleendar month o of line operation
ns is the
recomme ended minimu um). In the evvent that insuffficient data a are available, the previous month’s
performaance level can be used in the interim. Irresspective of the e number of da ata points usedd, or the
me over which they are colle
time fram ected, the operrator should ha ave a process to ensure datta which
reflects a statistical anomaly, or is erroneous, iss filtered to en nsure the inte egrity of the fu uel bias
programme.
4. PROCES
SS AND CONT
TROLS FOR A
AN FCM PROG
GRAMME
An operator, when propos sing the use off an FCM prog gramme as pa art of overall syystemic
defenses or larger mitigation strategies, should develop processes a nd controls to ensure
that the aims amme, namely the ability to account
s of the progra a for variiations in indiviidual
aeroplane performance, arre met. Additio onally, the operrator should ennsure that the data Process and
co
ontrols of an FCM
M
used during the pre-flight planning and in-flight opera ation of the ae eroplane have e the
programme
required inte
egrity to ensurre the safe op peration of the aeroplane. A Additionally, succh a
programme should demons strate the follow
wing processes s and controls:
Appendix 5 to
t Chapter 5 5-A5-3
• The operator should deemonstrate thaat the data colllected during in

n-service operration of the ae
eroplane
are accuurate. Where possible the data should b be collected a automatically; however, the manual
g of data does not preclude an
recording a operator fromm participating in an FCM pro ogramme.
• The perfformance data collected durin

ng in-service ooperation of the aeroplane sh
hould be comp
pared to
the predicted performance to determine the variation
n between the two.
• The perfformance data collected durinng in-service o

operation shoul d be reviewed and incorporaated into
em and FMS on a regular bassis at intervals not exceeding one month.
the flightt planning syste
• The operator should de

emonstrate how
w data collecte d are used by the flight plann
ning system and FMS.
• The operator should de emonstrate thee controls used to minimize th

he risk of huma
an error when inputting
data to th
he flight planning system or FMS.
F
• Where an a aeroplane’s actual perform mance is found to have deterio

orated resulting
g in an increasse in the
fuel burnn rate, the whoole of the incre
eased burn rate
e should be ussed by the ope erator when prreparing
future flig
ght plans. The whole of the in
ncrease should also be incorp
porated into the
e aeroplane’s F
FMS.
• Where an aeroplane’s actual performance is found tto have improvved resulting in a decrease in the fuel
burn rate e, the operatorr should reduce the fuel burn
n rate over a p
period of time w
when preparing future
flight pla
ans. The maxim mum allowable e improvementt in aeroplane performance tthat is reflected in the
flight planning system should
s not exc
ceed 0.3 per ce
ent in any one seven-day perriod, or 1.2 perr cent in
any one calendar montth. Where a single improvem ment greater thaan 0.3 per cen
nt is to be mad
de to the
flight planning system, the operator should
s have a process to enssure that the im
mprovement iss not the
result of statistical anom
maly or spuriou
us data.
• The difference between the aeroplane’s actual performance and the pred dicted performance is
normally
y expressed as s a percentage deviation fro
om the prediccted value with
h a positive ddeviation
nting degraded aeroplane perrformance from
represen m that predicte d and a negative value repre
esenting
performa
ance better than predicted.
• An operator may elect to use differrent methodolo ogies than that described bu ut in all casess should
demonsttrate that the methodology used is comp patible with alll of the system
ms used in th he flight
planning and operation of the operato
or’s aeroplane.
5. DEMO
ONSTRABLE ABILITY
A TO R
REPORT, MEAS
SURE
AND ANALY
YSE ESSENTIAAL DATA
An operator using FCM as a mitigation sttrategy should develop proce esses to measu ure and
analyse dataa received from
m the in-flight monitoring
m eroplane perforrmance for the explicit
of ae
purpose of adjustment
a and
d continuous improvement. TheseT data ca
an then be use ed to Reporting,
identify long
g-term trends with
w respect to o aeroplane fue ort-term spikes that
el burn or sho measuring and
analysing data
may be indicative of indiv vidual aeroplane defects. In n all cases thee aim of any data
re
elated to an FCM
M
analysis programme should be to improv ve overall fleet performances which will resu
ult in programme
decreased fu uel consumptio
on with an asso ociated decreas se in CO2 emisssions.
When analy ysing variationss in aeroplane fuel burn, the operator shou uld take into a
account the
operational environment
e in
n which the aerroplane has been operating too determine if tthis has been a factor that ha
as led to
the identified
d variation. Sim
milarly the operrator should coompare aeropla
ane maintenan nce data with tthe achieved fuuel burn
to help in the
e measuremen nt of the efficac
cy of the mainte
enance progra
amme. Fuel tren nd monitoring can also be ussed as a
tool to propose preventative maintenance that can assist in the reduction of fuel burn. For example, an identified
increase in an individual aeroplane’s fuel burn may be indicative of a control surface rigging problem, engine
deterioration or deterioration of the aeroplane’s surface. In order to achieve these benefits, the operator should
demonstrate the following capabilities:
• a process to record all in-flight data used in the determination of the performance variation of
individual aeroplane;
• a process to record all variations made to the flight planning and FMS systems to reflect an
aeroplane’s actual in-flight performance;
• a process to identify and monitor trends in fuel burn affecting individual aeroplanes and the operator’s
fleet in general;
• a process for identifying possible causation effects that explain variations in aeroplane fuel burn and
should demonstrate a system of mitigation for such effects;
• statistical and trend analysis methods during the analysis of aeroplane performance data. However, it
is recognized that there are occasions where nominative comparisons, simulation or expert advice
may be required to fully understand the data;
• where the operator uses a cost-benefit analysis to determine if further investigation or remediation of
an identified deterioration in aeroplane performance is required, the operator should take into account
the environmental cost of CO2 emissions associated with the increased fuel burn rates.
— — — — — — — —
Appendix
A x 6 to Cha
apter 5
EXAMPLLE OF A STATIST
S ICAL TAX XI FUEL P PROGRA AMME
USED
D TO CONNFORM TO O ANNEX X 6, PART T I, 4.3.6.3 a)
AND IN ACCCORDAN CE WITH H
ANNEX
A 6,, PART I, 4.3.6.6
1. GENERAL
This append
dix examines a methodology for the computation of taxi-o out fuel that ma
ay require an o
operational varriation in
accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.6 in
i order to confform to the req
quirements of 44.3.6.3 a).
2. STATIISTICAL TAXI FUEL
Statistical ta
axi fuel is a pe
erformance-bas sed methodolo ogy for the com mputation of taaxi-out fuel based on “a data a-driven
method that includes a fuel consumption monitoring pro ogramme” as sp pecified in 4.3. 6.6. A statistical taxi fuel prog
gramme
typically relie
es on the deveelopment of sta mes for all orig in and destina
atistical taxi tim ation airports inn an operator’ss fleet in
order to dettermine the co orrect amount of taxi fuel to o be built into the flight plan n based on sta atistical analyssis. The
underlying goal
g of this me
ethod is to pre event regular occurrences
o off flights burnin
ng through all of their taxi fu uel, and
therefore potentially into a portion of the contingency
c fueel and/or fuel fo
or the CFS.
3. SPECIFIC CRIT
TERIA, MITIGA
ATION MEASU
URES AND/OR R SAFETY RISK
CONTROLS S FOR A STATISTICAL TAXII FUEL PROGRRAMME
States having the knowle edge and exp pertise to monitor and me asure operato or
performance e should consid der allowing co ompetent operrators to confoorm to Annex 6 6,
Part I, 4.3.6..3 a) using a sttatistical taxi fuel programme subject to the presence of th e Criteria,
mittigations and
core requireements for perfformance-base ed variations described in Ch hapter 5 of thiis con
ntrols specific
manual and the following additional
a criterria requirementts. The operato
or should: to a statistical
taxi fuel
p
programme
• have a method or mechanism for the collection
n of aeroplane
e-
specific taxi
t time data;
• monitor the
t actual fuel consumption ra
ates of aeropla
anes using stattistical taxi fuel;
• implement a fuel polic cy in accordan nce with Anne ex 6, Part I, 4

4.3.7, that will support the ppractical
managem ment of a staatistical taxi fueel programme . The policy sshould give th he flight crew specific
instructio
ons regarding the
t best course e of action in ccases when ta xi fuel is comp
pletely consummed prior
to the coompletion of th
he taxi-out res sulting in the cconsumption o of other fuels ((e.g. contingen
ncy fuel)
before taake-off.
5-A6-1
5-A6-2 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
4. STATIS
STICAL TAXI FUEL
F PROCES
SS AND CONT
TROLS
Operators wishing
w to confform with Anne
ex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3
4 a) usingg statistical taxxi fuel
should demoonstrate the following processes and controols in addition tto those speciffied in Process and d
Chapter 5 off this manual: controls
specific to
statistical taxi-
• Data inttegrity: Proces
sses to ensure e data used in n statistical taxxi fuel out fuel
computaations have the required integrity to ensure tthe safe operattion of
the aeroplane.
• Data use and analysiis: The operator should have e demonstrable e processes to o analyse the rrequisite
data and d perform the calculations
c nec
cessary to arrivve at statistically valid fuel va
alues. Such proocesses
typically address:
Sta
atistical taxi-ou
ut fuel method
• his
storical data co
ollection period required;
• ae
eroplane-speciffic taxi fuel consumption data ;
• ae
eroplane-speciffic APU fuel consumption data
a;
• ae
eroplane-speciffic additional fu
uel consumption
n due to utiliza
ation of engine anti-ice;
• ae
eroplane-speciffic taxi time datta in relation to
o each departurre city, departu
ure time and
se
eason;
• tax
xi fuel deviation
n data correctio
ons for aeropla
ane take-off ma
ass changes;
• ide
entification, imp
portance and frrequency of exxperienced prollonged pre-take
e-off taxi timess;
• criiteria for exclud

ding unfavourable data and/o r outliers;
• rec
current operational circumsta
ances (frequenccy or cycles) re
equiring increassed fuel
co
onsumption suc ch as seasonal changes;
• rec
current circums
stances that pe
ermit taxi-out w
with fewer than all engines operating;
• pro
ocedures to en
nsure errors do not enter the ccomputation prrocess;
• ca
alculation of tax
xi fuel on the da
ay of use;
• de atistical data is not available.

efault taxi fuel figures to be utiilized when sta
• Process s review: Regu ular review of the

t functioning of the system is essential. In
n particular, the actual
coverage e value for eac ch type/departture airport com
mbination shouuld be reviewe ed regularly too ensure
that the designed cove erage values arre being obtain ned. The review
w interval shou
uld be short en nough to
ensure timely
t intervention, but not too short to be e skewed by ssmall sample ssizes (e.g. few wer than
30 flights
s/data points).
• Processs failures: Faailures to ach

hieve the req
quired coverag
ge levels sho
ould be invesstigated,
understo
ood and correctted.
Appendix 6 to
t Chapter 5 5-A6-3
5. ADDITIONAL DEMON
NSTRABLE AB
BILITIES TO R
REPORT, MEA
ASURE
AND ANALYSE
A ESS
SENTIAL DATAA
Operators wishing
w to confo
orm with Anne ex 6, Part I, 4.33.6.3 a) using a statistical taxxi fuel
programme should demon nstrate the ability to report, measure
m and a nalyse the esssential
data for the identification, analysis
a and mitigation
m of pottential safety ri sks that could affect Reporting,
the outcome e of flights and in accordancee with Chapter 5 of this manu ual. Such proccesses measuring
and
should be su ufficiently soph
histicated to co
ollect the large volumes of sa afety and opera ational
analysing
data necess sary to support effective SR RM, taxi fuel calculations a nd other appl icable taxi-out fuel
operational processes. Th he operator sho ould also dem monstrate the ffollowing capab bilities
prior to the commencemen
c nt of operations
s that use statis
stical taxi fuel:
• for a give
en departure city/aeroplane
c combination,
c d ata should be collected over a significant p period of
time or number
n of flights approved orr accepted by tthe State that p
permits statisticcally valid concclusions
to be drrawn from ava ailable data. The
T data to bee collected should be representative of seasonal
conditionns and other known
k recurrent changes likkely to affect ooperations and d typically inclludes in
relation to
t each city paiir:
Data in rela
ation to each departure
d aerod
drome Aerop
plane-specific d
data
• taxi rou
ute; • p
planned and acctual zero fuel mass;
• departu
ure gate; • a
actual fuel uplifft;
• departu
ure runway; • a
actual departurre fuel;
• initial departure fix; • p

planned taxi fu
uel;
• taxi time; • ttaxi fuel used;
• time sp
pent stopped orr idle; • p
planned taxi tim
me;
• local tim
me of departure
e; • ffuel consumpti on history for e
each specific
aaeroplane num
mber.
• day of week;
w
• numberr of engines us
sed for taxi;
• departuure aerodrome meteorologica
al
conditio
ons.
Note.— These are recom mmended data a points only. Actual data p
points may va
ary based on the
availability of
o data for colle
ection and anallysis.
6. EX
XAMPLE MET
THODOLOGY IN
I ESTABLISH
HING STATIST
TICAL TAXI-OUT FUELS
The following is a basic ex

xample of how an operator co
ould establish sstatistical taxi-o
out fuels for flig
ghts departing from its
home base aerodrome:
a
• operator performs an analysis

a for eac
ch departure fro
om the aerodro
ome, based on the time elapssed from
push bac
ck until take-offf (OUT-OFF evvent);
• analysis of the data inndicates that during

d certain peak departuure times (highh traffic volumes), the
median taxi-out
t time increases by +100 minutes, from
m the normal ba
aseline value o
of 10 minutes;
• the carrier then establishes a policyy applicable du uring peak dep parture banks requiring flightts to be
planned with an additioonal 10 minutes of taxi-out fu el, above the n normal allottedd amounts, e.g.. 200 kg
normal baseline
b allotme
ent plus 150 kg
g additional, forr total of 350 kg
g taxi fuel durin
ng peak times;
• periodically (every quarter) the carrier performs a re-analysis to determine the additional fuel allotment
and validate if the departure peaks have remained constant.
Note.— For aerodromes undergoing major taxiway/runway construction, this re-analysis should occur
on a much shorter cycle, e.g. once each week.
— — — — — — — —
A PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH JOB-AID

FOR AN APPROVING AUTHORITY
This job-aid is provided to assist an approving Authority when reviewing established processes/activities supporting
performance-based compliance to FPFM regulations. It summarizes the criteria that should be considered during the
implementation of performance-based regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations. When reviewing an
application submitted by an operator for the approval of performance-based methods and/or performance-based
compliance with alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations, the State of the Operator should review the
application in consideration of the elements summarized in this Appendix as well as those espoused in the body of the
manual.
The processes and activities that support the implementation of a performance-based approach to FPFM include but are
not limited to:
a) the operator’s organizational processes are established for FPFM training of staff, monitoring of
organizational and FPFM operational processes, hiring qualified personnel, etc., ensuring that the
operator’s commitment and responsibilities are reflected within the FPFM policy and procedures;
b) the operator’s FPFM specific operational capabilities are established as those described in Chapter 5,
section 5.4;
c) the operator establishes safety risk management processes for FPFM, i.e. data collection, hazard
identification, safety risk assessment and implementation of relevant risk mitigation measures to
ensure that the safety risks encountered during the flight planning and fuel management activities are
effectively managed;
d) safety performance monitoring by the operator includes selecting FPFM safety performance indicators
in agreement with the Authority, collecting historical data for the associated SPIs, defining baseline
performance, setting alert and target levels of safety performance;
e) continuous improvement of the FPFM processes and activities to validate that the systems maintain
an equivalent level of safety performance through the established SPIs;
f) safety oversight provided by the Authority through various mechanisms such as safety reviews, and
audits including early involvement with an operator during their performance monitoring and
measurement processes such as those listed above.
A performance-based method can be tailored to the size and complexity of an organization.
Civil aviation authorities having the knowledge and expertise to approve, monitor and measure operator performance
should consider allowing capable operators to maximize the technological capabilities of their aeroplanes, flight planning
systems, flight following capabilities, relevant ground infrastructure and SRM methods. Such performance-based
efficiencies allow for optimal fuel quantities to be carried. Authorities, however, must ensure a level of safety
performance that is acceptable to the State of the Operator.
5-A7-1
An operator needs to establish a planning process to ensure there is sufficient fuel, including final reserve fuel, to
complete a planned flight safely.
Reporting, measurement, analysis and follow-up should be a continuing process and justification for continuance of a
variation.
Performance-based methods should not be discouraged by States as long as the operator can demonstrate with a
detailed safety case that the operation would provide a level of safety performance that is acceptable to the State of the
Operator.
The systems and process established by the operator to support performance-based methods and performance-based
compliance with regulation should be approved by the State of the Operator before implementation.
Aeroplane performance monitoring.
a) The operator should maintain a database of valid fuel consumption data used to calculate its required
fuel planning figures of the preceding one to five years. This historical data should be flight-, aeroplane
type-, and route-specific and could be used by both the regulator and the operator to monitor fuel
planning trends and performance.
b) Specific aeroplane data acquisition and processing procedures that result in a detailed analysis of
each aeroplane’s individual fuel burn performance (fuel bias).
c) The operator should provide a comparative analysis of actual en-route fuel consumption versus flight
planned consumption.
Data verification
The Authority may review the analysis provided by the operator and verify the fuel consumption data
computation process and procedures.
Air operator communications capabilities
a) The air operator should have communication capabilities to exchange timely information with
aeroplanes in flight. Such communications could, for example, use VHF, HF, and SATCOM capability
(Voice / Data), ACARS/AFIS.
b) Redundancy built in for communication interruptions. When the communication systems are
outsourced to a third party, the operator should have contingency plans for any scheduled or non-
scheduled service interruptions.
Flight planning system
a) Reviewing the flight planning system used by the operator, the Authority should pay particular
attention to any computerized system used. The description, functionality and authenticity of software
should be considered.
b) The Authority may review or audit the aeroplane performance and navigation databases (e.g. FMS for
integrity reliability).
c) The Authority may review the destination route selection criteria, alternate aerodrome selection
criteria, and, when appropriate, track selection processes.
Extended Diversion Time Operations — EDTO. In the case of EDTO, the Authority should specifically consider critical
fuel consumption calculation processes and factors, if applicable.
Aeroplane navigational accuracy. The Authority should review the following:
a) flight crew navigation and fuel management procedures;
b) SPIs such as the reported Gross Navigational Errors incurred over a certain monitoring period; and
c) FMS installations and capabilities (e.g. approved level of RNP).
Maintenance reliability of fleet. In the case of an operator conducting EDTO, the State of the Operator should, in addition
to the fuel quantity and computing systems and indicators used by the operator, also review the operator’s reliability
programme for engines, APU and EDTO Significant Systems. This reliability programme typically includes:
a) a continuous assessment of engines’ reliability, including monitoring of engine in-flight shut down rates
(IFSD Rates);
b) as applicable, monitoring of the APU in-flight start reliability;
c) an oil consumption monitoring programme for the engines and the APU;
d) an engine condition monitoring programme;
e) a verification programme.
Alternate and diversion aerodromes. The Authority should evaluate the operational history of the operator and carefully
review the following:
a) rate of actual en-route diversions due to mechanical problems per specified number of operations;
b) operational personnel responsible for monitoring availability of en-route alternate or diversion

aerodromes;
c) monitoring of continued suitability of diversion or alternate aerodromes with respect to fuel, regulation,
navigational and aerodrome facilities;
d) number of air operator on-site audits recommended;
e) confirmation that direct routings between the destination and the alternate aerodrome(s) are not used
in fuel planning unless such routings are routinely assigned by ATC.
Flight monitoring, flight following capability. The operator’s flight following and monitoring capability could be a
determining factor to be considered by the Authority in approving performance-based methods or approaches to
regulatory compliance. Therefore, the Authority should review the following:
a) specific dispatcher, flight operations officer, or other operational control personnel flight monitoring or
flight following responsibilities;
b) specific dispatcher, flight operations officer, or other operational control personnel flight following
coordination requirements with the pilot-in-command that ensure compliance with the operator’s fuel-
management, and flight diversion procedures;
c) real-time re-analysis capabilities.

Special operational considerations
a) The Authority should consider the application in relation to the air operator specific area of operation
as authorized in the relevant operational specifications;
b) In relation to the area of operation, the Authority should ensure that the operator uses appropriate
meteorological data including upper wind information with an appropriate level of accuracy.
Additional notes for the approving Authority:
a) The performance-based method, process or system should include mandatory reporting of hull-
specific performance monitoring that continuously monitors, analyses, compares and biases the fuel
performance calculations to the actual performance for each individual aeroplane being used under
the authorization granted.
b) A new aeroplane of the same make and model currently operated under this authorization by the air
operator should use the average bias of all aeroplanes of that same make, model and engine
combination until its particular bias is established in accordance with the operator’s approved
programme.
c) A used aeroplane of the same make, model and engine combination being added to the fleet of an
operator should be ineligible for a reduction of contingency fuel until its baseline and bias are
established.
d) However, if the used aeroplane referred to in c) above has historical fuel bias developed by using the
monitoring and analysis programme required, immediately preceding the introduction into service by
another operator, the State of the Operator may approve the use of the previous operator’s existing
bias, provided the aeroplane airframe/engine combination has not changed.
e) Data submitted by the operator should be reviewed by an Aeroplane Evaluations Group, or equivalent,
for that type aeroplane.
f) Data for analysis should be presented in the following format:
Flight #/Date/Origin/Destination/Equipment/Scheduled Time/Actual Time/Planned Burn/Actual

Burn/Arrival Fuel/Diversions/Reason/Fuel Emergencies/Low Fuel.
g) Fuel planning data collection spreadsheet.
i) The Authority should specify the details to be included in the data and the format to be used by
the operator submitting data.
ii) Operators should always submit data accompanied by a summary of their fuel policy.
iii) The Authority should always request complete data sets and should not filter out any flight data
provided. Instead, reviewers having specific reasons to question the data accuracy should identify
flight data (with an “X” in the last column) and provide comments in the second-to-last column.
Conclusion. Performance-based alternate aerodrome selection and fuel management is intended to provide flexibility
allowing the operators to use SRM principles to optimize the FPFM process (the amount of fuel carried on any given
flight) while achieving a target level of safety performance. The mass savings will translate directly to reduced fuel burn.
Reduced fuel burn equates directly to lower operating costs and fewer emissions.
______________________
Chapter 6
IN-FLIGHT FUEL MANAGEMENT
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.1.1 Annex 6, Part I, Standards 4.3.7.1 and 4.3.7.2 state:
4.3.7 In-flight fuel management
4.3.7.1 An operator shall establish policies and procedures, approved by the State of the
Operator, to ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel management are performed.
4.3.7.2 The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining
on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be
made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing.
6.1.2 Conformance with these Standards requires an operator to establish policies and procedures applicable to
both flight crew and operational control personnel for the purposes of ensuring the usable fuel remaining is monitored
and appropriately managed in flight (see Figure 6-1). This is important for many reasons but particularly to foster an
operational culture that ensures:
a) the continual validation or invalidation of assumptions made during the planning stage (pre-flight and/
or in-flight re-planning);
b) flight management, re-analysis and adjustment occur, when necessary;
c) the protection of final reserve fuel and safe flight completion.
6.1.3 While the previous chapters focused almost entirely on the various planning criteria designed to ensure the
safe completion of flights, this chapter outlines the actions to be taken by flight crew and operational control personnel
after a flight has departed. Such actions are the culmination of an operator’s fuel policy and ultimately ensure, to the
extent reasonably practicable, that fuel is used as allocated during pre-flight planning, in-flight re-planning or as
necessary to ensure the safe completion of a flight.
6.1.4 It is important to note that in-fight fuel management policies are not intended to replace pre-flight planning
or in-flight re-planning activities but to act as controls to ensure planning assumptions are continually validated. Such
validation is necessary to initiate, when necessary, the re-analysis and adjustment activities that will ultimately ensure
the safe completion of each flight.
6.1.5 Finally, this chapter concludes the manual with an expansion of the in-flight fuel management SARPs
related to the protection of final reserve fuel including scenarios that illustrate the circumstances that could lead to a
declaration of MINIMUM FUEL or a fuel emergency (MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL). Such declarations should
represent the last lines of defense in a multilayered strategy designed to ensure the protection of final reserve fuel and
safe flight completion.
6-1
6-2 Flig
ght Planning an
nd Fuel Manage
ement (FPFM) Manual
SAFE FLIGHT
T COMPLETION
N
(Flight planniing assumptions

continuously vvalidated and fina
al
Adjusttment if reserve fu
uel protected)
neceessary
In-flight fuel
checks and fu uel
managemen nt
Pre-flight assumption re-

analysis
Pre-flightt
planning Desti nation, (Applicab
ble) Alternate,
orr nearest aerodro ome where
a safe landing can n be made
Fig
gure 6-1. Fos
stering a cultu
ure that ensurres safe flight completion
6.2 OPERAT
TOR FUEL POLICY AND FO
OSTERING THE
E APPROPRIA
ATE
OP
PERATIONAL CULTURE
6.2.1 Conformance e with Annex 6 fuel planning SARPs is inte ended, inter alia, to ensure tthe safe complletion of
each planneed flight and too allow for de eviations from the planned o operation. Thiss is accomplish hed using a balanced
approach to the implementation of opera ator fuel policy that is depend
dent, to the greeatest practical extent, on the
e use of
accurate pre
e-flight planning
g, proactive fue
el managementt and actions to o protect final rreserve fuel (Fiigure 6-2).
6.2.2 To achieve this

t balance it is first necess
sary to undersstand the relattionship between the SARPss which,
practically sp
peaking, define
e the starting and ending poinnts of an operattor’s fuel policyy:
a) Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.1 which requirres an aeroplan

ne to carry suffficient fuel to complete the planned
flight saffely; and
b) Annex 6,6 Part I, 4.3.7.2 which requires the PIC to o continually e

ensure the usa
able fuel remaiining on
board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to
o an aerodrom e where a safe
e landing can b
be made
with the planned final re
eserve fuel rem
maining upon laanding.
6.2.3 These SARP Ps, when consid dered togetherr and in the app ext, provide the
propriate conte e basis for fligh
ht crews
to pro-active ely manage fue el immediately after
a flight com
mmencement in n order to prote
ect the plannedd operation or tto adjust
the plan. They also provide the basis forr flight crews to ns necessary tto protect final reserve
o take the pre--emptive action
fuel. It is impportant to note
e, however, thaat neither SARP considered iindividually or out of context can provide th he basis
for a balance ed approach to o operator fuel policy nor shou ed to continue an improperly planned or invvalidated
uld they be use
operation.
Chapter 6. In-flight Fuel Management 6-3
Comprehensive, Pro-active
accurate and, in-flight
where possible, fuel management
predictive
pre-flight planning
Pre-emptive flight
crew actions to protect
f inal reserve fuel
Figure 6-2. A balanced approach to operator fuel policy
6.2.4 The next step in the implementation of fuel policy is the allocation of resources necessary to ensure
accurate fuel calculations as well as to support the operational culture of “continuous fuel state awareness and proactive
fuel management” necessary to sustain safe flight operations. Such a culture presumes that the continuous validation
(by the flight crew and flight operations officer/flight dispatcher, if applicable) of pre-flight planning assumptions is
necessary to ensure safe flight completion. It also presumes that when the operation does not unfold as planned, the
flight crew will intervene to re-analyse and adjust the plan as necessary. This continuous reconciliation of “planned”
versus “actual” performance is a fundamental fuel management activity.
6.2.5 To support this fundamental activity, it is essential that operators create opportunities for the flight crew or
operational control personnel to intervene when the criteria used to plan the flight have the potential to be, or have been,
invalidated. These opportunities should be imbedded in operator fuel policy, not only to ensure fuel is appropriately
allocated, but also to continually ensure sufficient fuel remains available to complete each planned flight safely.
6.2.6 Finally, an operator’s fuel policy should culminate in a mandate to protect final reserve fuel remaining in the
tanks upon landing at any aerodrome. This mandate should also identify the proactive measures necessary to achieve
this aim and is intended to ensure a safe landing when unforeseen circumstances may preclude completion of the flight
as originally planned. It is important to note that the ability to protect final reserve fuel, in and of itself, should not be used
as a substitute for in-flight re-planning or as justification to continue an improperly planned operation.
6.3 SCOPE OF FLIGHT CREW AND FLIGHT OPERATIONS OFFICER

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
6.3.1 Effective prescriptive and/or performance-based compliance with alternate aerodrome selection and fuel
planning regulations is dependent upon many assumptions made during pre-flight planning. These assumptions can be
quickly invalidated, however, by inconsistent flight crew actions or unforeseen circumstances. Given this potential, it is
essential for all relevant personnel to understand their roles and responsibilities related to the operator’s fuel policy. This
is especially important in scenarios where fuel carriage is optimized for the route and continual re-analysis/adjustment is
crucial to ensuring the completion of the flight as planned. With all of this in mind, operator in-flight fuel checks and fuel
management policies and procedures used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.1, should address, inter alia:
a) the variables used in the calculation of the usable fuel required to take off or to continue beyond the
point of in-flight re-planning;
b) the alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning methods used in flight planning;
c) flight crew responsibilities and actions related to pre-flight fuel planning and fuel load determination;
d) flight crew responsibilities and actions related to flight planning methods that require specific in-flight
re-analysis, re-planning or re-dispatch procedures (e.g. RCF, PNR. DP, PDP);
e) the OFP and instructions for its use;
f) deviations from the OFP or other actions that could invalidate flight planning assumptions
(e.g. acceptance of direct routings, altitude changes, speed changes);
g) actions related to the acquisition of timely and accurate information that may affect in-flight fuel
management (e.g. meteorology, NOTAM, aerodrome condition);
h) the practical means for the in-flight validation (or invalidation) of assumptions made during alternate
aerodrome selection or fuel planning including instructions for recording and evaluating remaining
usable fuel at regular intervals;
i) the factors to be considered and actions to be taken by the PIC if flight planning assumptions are
invalidated (re-analysis and adjustment) including guidance on the addition of discretionary fuel at the
flight planning stage if necessary to ensure adequate safety margins are maintained throughout the
flight;
j) actions to be taken by the PIC to protect final reserve fuel including instructions for requesting delay
information from ATC;
k) instructions for the declaration of MINIMUM FUEL;
l) instructions for the declaration of a fuel emergency (MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL).
6.3.2 Much of the information that can be used as the basis for operational policy and procedure required to
conform to Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.1, was discussed in the preceding chapters and appendices. The balance of this
chapter, however, is devoted to providing an operational perspective on those Standards that form the foundation of an
operator’s in-flight fuel management policy.
6.4 COMPLETING THE PLANNED FLIGHT SAFELY
6.4.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.1, specifies that “An aeroplane shall carry a sufficient amount of usable fuel to
complete the planned flight safely and to allow for deviations from the planned operation”. Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.7
requires that the use of fuel after flight commencement for purposes other than originally intended during pre-flight
planning shall require a re-analysis and, if applicable, adjustment of the planned operation. These SARPs, taken
together, reinforce the notion that the safe conclusion of any flight depends on the accuracy and completeness of initial
planning as well as the intelligent use of on-board resources including usable fuel supply. The best fuel planning in the
world cannot ensure a safe outcome if the execution of the plan is faulty or if invalidated planning assumptions go
undetected. As such, flight planning activities must be complemented by practical in-flight fuel management policies and
procedures.
6.4.2 The preparation of an OFP typically includes anticipated fuel consumption and fuel quantity expected to be
remaining over each point of a route. Modern aeroplane technology also offers the capability to closely monitor fuel
consumption during operations. Taken together these elements form the basis for reliable and accurate methods to
monitor and manage en-route fuel burn. Such methods should be clearly defined by the operator in the form of policies
and procedure for use by the flight crew as well as relevant operational control personnel.
Considerations before take-off when a flight does not unfold as planned
6.4.3 At any stage in a flight it may become apparent to the flight crew through an in-flight fuel check or simple
inspection that pre-flight assumptions regarding fuel consumption are not being realized. One potential outcome is
under-consumption (under-burn), which can arise as the result of one or more of the parameters used in flight planning
being more favourable in practice than as planned.
6.4.4 Under-burns are unlikely to cause significant operational difficulty unless a flight was planned near a
maximum take-off or landing weight limit. In such cases, under-burn implies that the take-off or arrival landing weight
may exceed such limits. In either case, under-burns can be managed easily and do not typically pose a threat to safe
flight completion. On the contrary, from purely an operational perspective, being under or on burn typically results in
having fuel available for use later in the flight (to deviate, hold, divert, etc.).
6.4.5 Over consumption (over-burn), on the other hand, arises when the conditions encountered in actual
practice are less favourable than the conditions or parameters set during pre-flight planning, such as:
a) higher than planned ZFW;
b) longer than expected taxi times;
c) longer than planned routings;
d) cruise altitude less favourable than planned;
e) cruise speed less efficient than planned;
f) worse than forecast wind components.
6.4.6 In contrast to under-burn, unmitigated over-burn can easily limit the PIC’s ability to complete the planned
operation. It is therefore essential for flight crews and operational control personnel alike to understand the parameters
used to plan the trip as well as the circumstances when over-burn poses a threat to safe flight completion. This is
especially important when making decisions that require a clear understanding and accurate assessment of the current
fuel state and whether or not margins exist in remaining fuel quantities that can be repurposed in the event of shortfalls.
Considerations prior to take-off (analysis and adjustment)
6.4.7 Flight crews and operational control personnel should be pro-active when it comes to managing a
consumable and finite resource such as fuel. To achieve this end, the best place to start is with an accurate plan that
accounts for all foreseeable, and to the greatest practical extent, unforeseeable occurrences. The next challenge is to
ensure the plan is continuously monitored and reconciled against actual performance. Finally, flight crews must be given
the opportunity to intervene as necessary to adjust the plan based on the latest information available.
6.4.8 The greatest challenge during the pre-flight allocation of fuel is deciding how much fuel will be necessary to
cope with unforeseen occurrences that have the potential to invalidate the plan as well as when in the flight such fuel
may be needed. Contingency fuel is allocated for this purpose and is intended to compensate for unforeseen
occurrences on the ground and in flight. It is important to note, however, that contingency fuel, while available for use
during taxi-out, may need to be preserved to account for other unforeseeable occurrences later in the flight.
6.4.9 Arguably the best opportunity to preclude taking fuel shortages into the air occurs on the ground prior to
take-off. With this concept in mind, the operator should establish a hierarchy within its fuel policy to practically ensure
sufficient fuel is uplifted (and ultimately used) to compensate for foreseeable occurrences on the ground while
preserving contingency fuel, to the greatest practical extent, to compensate for unforeseeable occurrences in flight (see
Figure 6-3).
6.4.10 In order to maintain the integrity of the aforementioned hierarchy and to ensure fuel is appropriately
allocated for foreseeable occurrences on the ground, the “qualified use” of contingency fuel to compensate for
unforeseen occurrences on the ground could be identified as a “trigger event” within an operator’s fuel policy as follows:
a) contingency fuel, while available for use during taxi-out, may need to be preserved to account for other
occurrences later in the flight (e.g. to meet EDTO requirements);
b) there may be times when the consumption of contingency fuel on the ground cannot be avoided. In
such cases the partial or complete consumption of contingency fuel (presumes taxi and discretionary
fuel have already been consumed) requires re-analysis and adjustment as necessary and as
determined by the PIC, or the PIC and FOO in a shared system of operational control;
Fuel use prior to take-off
1. Taxi fuel: foreseeable and based on local conditions at the departure aerodrome, taking APU
fuel consumption into account, and refers to the fuel required to move an aircraft under its own
power from engine start considering the route to the departure runway. Known taxi times for
specific airports and runway configurations should be used when available.
2. Discretionary fuel: foreseeable and an extra amount of fuel to be carried at the discretion of
the pilot-in-command if, for example, the latest information available indicates the fuel allocated
for taxi may not be sufficient to compensate for expected taxi delays or to compensate for other
factors, based on operational experience, that could contribute to increased fuel consumption.
3. Contingency fuel: reserved to compensate for unforeseen occurrences and for “qualified”
use on the ground if taxi fuel and discretionary fuel are consumed and other operational and
safety requirements can be met.
Figure 6-3. Fuel use prior to take-off

c) any re-analysis will include a determination if margins exist in remaining fuel quantities allowing fuel to
be re-allocated to ensure safe completion of the planned operation (e.g. reconciliation of plan versus
actual trip fuel considering such factors as actual ZFW, planned cruise speed, cruise level);
d) the plan will be adjusted as necessary to restore appropriate safety margins by, as applicable:
1) re-planning using the actual ZFW;
2) flying at a more economical speed than planned;
3) seeking a more economical cruise level;
4) seeking more efficient routing from ATC;
5) re-routing to reduce the length of the critical diversion;
6) selecting a different destination alternate or, if feasible, removing an alternate;
7) revising the flight plan to include planned re-release/re-dispatch;
e) if, in the opinion of the PIC (or PIC and FOO, as applicable), the planned operation cannot be safely
completed or adjusted, the PIC should return to refuel in order to preclude taking a known and
potentially consequential fuel shortage into the air.
Relationship between contingency fuel and the Critical Fuel Scenario (CFS)
6.4.11 As previously stated, one circumstance when over-burn may pose a threat to safe flight completion is the
partial or complete consumption of contingency fuel before take-off. It is important to note, given the accurate
computation of taxi fuel and the prudent use of discretionary fuel, that such a circumstance should be a fairly rare event.
Additionally and in order for such a circumstance to pose a threat to safe flight completion, there would have to be little
or no margin between the planned and actual trip fuel. Nevertheless it is precisely these sorts of assumptions that must
be considered by the PIC any time a flight begins to burn into contingency fuel prior to take-off.
6.4.12 In some cases modest over-consumption, implicit in the carriage of contingency fuel, may not in and of
itself be a cause for concern. Flight crews must realize, however, that any early consumption of contingency fuel means
that fuel may not be available to compensate for occurrences later in the flight. This is an important point as, depending
on the nature of the flight, it may restrict the PIC's options precisely when the need for contingency fuel would be
greatest.
6.4.13 The concern for the protection of contingency fuel arises when a flight contains a sector which gives rise to
a critical fuel scenario, typically an EDTO flight, but conceivably a non-EDTO flight where the depressurization case is
limiting. In either case, the fuel allocated to be on board at the critical point is based on the presumption that the fuel
consumption en route to the critical point is as planned, so that some of the contingency fuel loaded at departure is still
on board. To alleviate this concern, operators may plan a flight to arrive at the critical point with some margin of fuel
above the minimum (protected contingency fuel). Over-burn early in the flight, however, can quickly erode this margin to
zero requiring flight crew intervention as early as possible to ensure its preservation.
6.4.14 The critical fuel scenario therefore must be considered carefully, as over-burn or improper planning can
reduce planned safety margins. Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 f) defines contingency fuel as one of the variables in the
additional fuel equation. Additional fuel is defined as the fuel required to protect against the very unlikely event of an
engine failure or de-pressurization at the most critical point in the flight and/or the manifestation of the EDTO critical fuel
scenario as defined by the State of the Operator. The protection of some contingency fuel is therefore intrinsic in the
protection of additional fuel. Put another way, it means that any fuel uplifted to comply with the additional fuel
requirements of 4.3.6.3 f) typically assumes that some amount of contingency fuel will be dedicated to protecting the
critical fuel scenario.
6.4.15 Another point to consider is that because some of the contingency fuel may be included in the additional
fuel equation it may not available for other contingencies if the critical fuel scenario manifests itself. Conversely, if
contingency fuel is consumed prior to the critical point, there may be insufficient fuel remaining to protect the critical fuel
scenario. It is important to note that the entire amount of additional fuel (which may include some of the planned
contingency fuel) is allocated during pre-flight planning to ensure the aeroplane, at the most critical point along the route,
can descend as necessary, proceed to an alternate aerodrome, fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft)
above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions and make an approach and landing.
6.4.16 As a practical matter, and to manage the process of protecting contingency fuel (if desired by the operator
or required by the authority), and calculating additional fuel for EDTO, flight planning systems typically offer at least three
options as outlined in Table 6-1. Note that “protecting” contingency fuel in this context simply means taking the additional
steps to ensure it is likely to be available at certain points in the flight but not necessarily requiring that it be available.
6.4.17 It is important that flight crews and operational control personnel alike understand the basis for the
computation of additional fuel in order to make prudent decisions regarding the early consumption of contingency fuel. If,
as illustrated in the previous paragraph and Table 6-1, for example, flight planning software does not account for the
consumption of contingency fuel prior to the most critical point, then it is likely there will be little or no margin for
increased fuel consumption up to that point. Conversely, if some amount of contingency fuel consumption en route to the
critical point is considered as part of pre-flight planning, then the margin between additional fuel required and additional
fuel available is likely to be greater. These distinctions are important as they may impact the PIC’s decision to take off or
return to the stand for refuelling after the partial or complete use of contingency fuel on the ground.
Note.— Refer to Chapter 4, 4.24 Pre-flight fuel planning — additional fuel of this manual for practical
instructions regarding the computation of additional fuel.
Considerations at the point of in-flight re-planning and/or decision point
6.4.18 Flights that are planned with an in-flight re-planning or decision point share common considerations
regardless of the flight re-planning method used (e.g. PDP, DP, 3 per cent ERA, re-dispatch). In each case, a
combination of conditions must be satisfied to proceed beyond the re-planning or decision point and continue to the
destination. The flight crew therefore spends the time during the en-route phase judiciously monitoring and evaluating a
host of factors to determine whether or not a flight may continue beyond a decision point to the destination or must divert
to an en-route alternate. All such considerations are typically explained in great detail within an operator’s fuel policy.
6.4.19 One scenario, however, that may be overlooked is the notion of an “un-planned” re-release or re-dispatch.
In the case of simple A-to-B flights, for example, there is no planned re-release point although many of the
considerations for in-flight re-planning are applicable. It is important to note, however, that regardless of the flight
planning method used, flight crews must always be able to recognize when the conditions under which a flight was
originally planned (or released) have changed. To accomplish this aim, flight crews must become attuned to the
conditions of their release (i.e. flight plan) as well as have access to the most current information available related to its
execution.
Table 6-1. Protecting contingency fuel and calculating additional fuel
Option Explanation Implications
1. Contingency fuel “unprotected” to the Contingency fuel is calculated as a As a consequence, if more than the
2
(EDTO) Critical Point . straight percentage of trip fuel in planned taxi fuel is used on the ground
accordance with Annex 6, Part I, before take-off, “EDTO critical scenario
4.3.6.3 c) and no accommodation is fuel (to account for icing, errors in wind
made to ensure its availability after forecasting, APU use, etc.)” and to
flight commencement, for the case of a allow for 15 minutes of holding over the
diversion from the (EDTO) Critical EDTO en-route alternate aerodrome
2
Point to the EDTO en-route alternate will begin to be consumed.
aerodrome in the critical fuel scenario
In the absence of any other mitigating
1
actions the burning of fuel on the
ground beyond these quantities means
that the EDTO en-route alternate
aerodrome cannot be reached in the
critical scenario case even if everything
else unfolds as planned.
2. Contingency fuel “partially protected” One operator best practice is to protect In the absence of other mitigating
2 1
to the (EDTO) Critical Point . some of the contingency fuel en route actions , if the taxi fuel and protected
to the critical point. The logic here is to portion of contingency fuel are
include a portion of the contingency fuel consumed on the ground due to
for the DEP to the (EDTO) Critical extended taxi time, the EDTO en-route
2
Point in the additional fuel calculation. alternate aerodrome cannot be reached
in the critical fuel scenario case for the
This “protected” amount of contingency same reasons attributed to option 1
fuel creates a margin that should allow
2
reaching the (EDTO) Critical Point with
enough fuel to fulfil the critical fuel
scenario to the EDTO en-route
alternate aerodrome even in the case of
over burn due to unexpected
occurrences.
3. Contingency fuel “completely Another operator practice is to protect In the absence of other mitigating
2 1
protected” to the (EDTO) Critical Point . the entire amount of contingency fuel actions , if the taxi fuel and protected
for the DEP to the (EDTO) Critical portion of contingency fuel are
2
Point . This option presumes that all of consumed on the ground due to
the “required” contingency fuel would extended taxi time, the EDTO en-route
still be available at the critical point and alternate aerodrome cannot be reached
is practically accomplished at the in the critical fuel scenario case for the
planning stage by adding the required same reasons attributed to option 1.
contingency to the additional fuel
calculation a second time. By protecting contingency fuel in this
manner, however, it is assumed that
the flight would reach the critical DP
with enough fuel to fulfil the critical
scenario even if taxi fuel and the
“required” contingency fuel for DEP to
DEST were consumed before take-off.
Note 1.— The implications related to each option assume no other mitigating actions taken by the flight
crew to preclude a fuel shortage when airborne (e.g. re-analysis and adjustment or the uplift of discretionary fuel).
Note 2. — The (EDTO) Critical Point relates to the point along the route with the most limiting Critical
Fuel and typically coincides with the last Equal Time Point (ETP) within the EDTO segment of the flight.
6.4.20 Information that would be useful in determining whether or not a landing can be made at the destination or
any available en-route alternate is typically related to:
a) meteorological conditions, both en route and at the destination, to include hazardous phenomena such
as thunderstorms, turbulence, icing and restrictions to visibility;
b) field conditions, such as runway condition and availability and status of navigation aids;
c) en-route navigation systems and facilities status, where possible failures could affect the safe
continuation or completion of the flight;
d) en-route fuel supply, including actual en-route consumption compared to planned consumption, as
well as the impact of any changes of alternate airport or additional en-route delays;
e) airborne equipment that becomes inoperative, which results in an increased fuel consumption or a
performance or operational decrement that could affect the flight crew’s ability to make a safe landing
at an approved airport;
f) air traffic management concerns, such as re-routes, altitude or speed restrictions and facilities or
system failures or delays; or
g) security concerns that could affect the routing of the flight or its airport of intended landing.
6.4.21 Access to such information is crucial to ensuring flights do not proceed beyond the last possible point of
diversion to an en-route alternate airport and continue to the destination when, in the opinion of either the PIC or, in a
shared system of operational control, the PIC and FOO/Dispatcher, it is unsafe to do so.
Understanding the Critical Fuel Scenario (CFS)
6.4.22 Although the manifestation of the CFS is an extremely rare event, a fuel shortfall approaching the critical
point should be carefully considered. Some of the central issues for the PIC to consider when a fuel shortfall occurs
include but are not limited to:
a) What is the size of the shortfall? The size of any fuel shortfall should be translated into minutes of
holding over the diversion aerodrome (15 minutes is required) and an analysis undertaken to
incrementally refine flight planning assumptions.
b) Is there any conservatism or “pad” left in the flight plan? A reduction in ZFW from plan would result in
the flight being lighter than the weight used as the basis for the CFS calculation, resulting in a lower
fuel burn to the diversion aerodrome.
c) What were the flight planning assumptions used for the CFS? The CFS is based on an engine failure
or depressurization at the most critical point in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 f) 1) although
in the case of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3 f) 2) an engine failure and depressurization must typically be
considered. In either case, in addition to fuel for the diversion and 15 minutes holding, CFS fuel
includes an allotment of fuel to account for APU use, anti-icing use, errors in wind forecasting and
deterioration in cruise fuel burn performance. With this in mind, the operator’s dispatch organization,
for example, could be enlisted to determine if the allowance for additional fuel for airframe anti-icing
and additional drag due to icing on unprotected surfaces is unnecessary or excessive and recalculate
the CFS accordingly.
The CFS calculation example in Table 6-2 contains the potential critical fuel scenarios and provides
some insight into the variables to be re-analysed by an operator’s dispatch organization in the event of
a fuel shortfall:
Table 6-2. CFS calculation example
EDTO ENTRY AIRPORT KSFO/SFO

EDTO EXIT AIRPORT PHTO/ITO
EARLIEST/LATEST ARRIVAL TIME FOR EDTO ENR ALTN APTS BASED ON ETD
KSFO/SFO SUITABLE 1826Z/2349Z
PHTO/ITO SUITABLE 2055Z/2345Z
CP-1 N2858.8 W13839.4

FUEL REMAINING 56000 FUEL REQD 54858
2 ENG OR 1 ENG TIME FROM CP TO ALTN AT 320KIAS/FL100 IS 157 MINS
1 ENG TIME FROM CP TO ALTN AT 320KIAS/OPT IS 135 MINS
CP-KSFO/SFO CP-PHTO/ITO
SCENARIO 1 E/O OPT 1 E/O FL100 ALL ENG. FL100 1 E/O OPT 1 E/O FL100 ALL ENG. FL100
Dist 967 967 967 1054 1054 1054
Avg Wind Comp M23 M10 M10 P20 P12 P12
Avg Oat M01 P01 P01 M03 P03 P03
Fuel Descent/Crz
46 359 50 558 48 094 46 359 50 558 48 094
/Approach
15min Hold 1500ft
3 000 3 000 3 000 3 000 3 000 3 000
AFE
Apu Burn 850 850 0 850 850 850
Ice Drag 0 0 0 0 0 0
Engine Anti-Ice 200 200 200 200 200 200
Wing Anti-Ice 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wind Error 260 240 240 270 250 250
TOTAL FUEL
50 669 54 848 51 534 50 679 54 858 52 394
REQUIRED
d) Is there additional “conservatism” built into CFS planning? Beyond the previously stated critical fuel
allowances, it is important to remember that an engine failure and/or depressurization is an extremely
rare event. Rarer still would a failure coincident with the most critical point along the route. Even so, if
a failure did occur, would the diversion to the EDTO alternate aerodrome be more or less efficient than
planned?
The CFS worst-case scenario involving a depressurization, for example, would require a descent to a
low and inefficient altitude. Other diversions (e.g. engine failure without other complications) may well
be flown safely at a higher altitude with a consequent reduction in fuel consumption compared to the
CFS.
Another point to consider is the proximity to the critical point when a failure occurs as well as any fuel
savings to be derived from an expeditious and efficient diversion to the EDTO en-route alternate
aerodrome. For example, the use of an idle power descent and allowing the FMC to optimize the
speed could result in significant fuel savings en route to the alternate aerodrome. For example, a
three-hour planned diversion flown at FL 200 instead of FL100 may result in approximately an extra
30 minutes of holding time available.
e) Are there sufficient fuel margins to protect fuel at the destination and/or destination alternate?
Considering that the manifestation of the CFS is an extremely unlikely event, a more operationally
realistic measure of the fuel state of the flight may be the forecast fuel remaining at the destination
and/or destination alternate. The presumption here is that, from an operational perspective, a low fuel
state may not truly exist until there is a reasonable certainty that final reserve fuel can no longer be
protected at the destination and destination alternate aerodrome.
One best practice would be to define such a fuel state in the operator’s fuel policy to coincide with
requests for delay information from ATC. Such requests, intended to preclude minimum and
emergency fuel states, are triggered in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.1, when unanticipated
circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the final reserve fuel
plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome.
f) Is there an immediate risk to the aircraft or to the safe completion of the flight to the en-route alternate,
destination or any other given aerodrome? Remember that the additional fuel calculation is a planning
exercise designed to protect against the unlikely manifestation of the CFS. Equally important to
remember is that Annex 6, Part I, Attachment D, 3.2.2.3, allows the following factors to be considered
if a landing at any given aerodrome would be the more appropriate course of action:
1) aeroplane configuration, mass, systems status and fuel remaining;
2) wind and weather conditions en route at the diversion altitude, minimum altitudes en route and
fuel consumption to the en-route alternate aerodrome;
3) runways available, runway surface condition and weather, wind and terrain in the proximity of the
en-route alternate aerodrome;
4) instrument approaches and approach/runway lighting available and rescue and firefighting
services (RFFS) at the en-route alternate aerodrome;
5) the pilot’s familiarity with that aerodrome and information about that aerodrome provided to the
pilot by the operator; and
6) facilities for passenger and crew disembarkation and accommodation.
6.4.23 Finally whatever course of action is undertaken, appropriate fuel management is likely to be vital,
regardless of when the fuel shortfall occurs. Additionally, steps should be taken by the operator to preclude future
shortfalls and ensure to the greatest practical extent that for future flights, if applicable, fuel for the CFS is on board at
the (EDTO) Critical Point.
Considerations in the terminal area
6.4.24 Modern systems and methods make it relatively easy to continuously monitor fuel consumption and fuel on
board on arrival, although such information may be of little use to a flight crew that does not exercise appropriate
judgment as a flight unfolds. With this in mind, it is important to note that all flights no matter the duration always arrive
with far fewer options than were available when they departed. For example, a flight typically arrives in the vicinity of its
destination aerodrome with the following fuel on board regardless of the length of the flight from the point of departure
(see Figure 6-4).
Discretionary
(if uplifted at the discretion
of the PIC)
Contingency
(unused remaining)
Usable fuel remaining upon arrival in the vicinity Foreseen factors
of the destination aerodrome (e.g. ATC delays)
Approach fuel
Destination
alternate
(if applicable)
Final reserve
Figure 6-4. Usable fuel remaining
6.4.25 At this point in the flight, the PIC must decide in association with operational control personnel, if available,
how best to use the remaining and scarce resource. In many cases, the best decision may be an early diversion in order
to avoid making a more difficult choice among fewer options later in the flight. Additionally, if a destination is close to
weather minimums or suffering from extended delays, the more information available to increase the PIC’s situational
awareness, the better the basis for a sound decision.
Diversions
6.4.26 Making informed decisions based on the best information available is essential when weighing options in
the terminal area. For example, if alternate fuel is available, it should allow for a diversion from decision height; but is
initiating an approach the best decision under the circumstances? The decision to divert may be better made before
burning any approach fuel, and even before all contingency fuel is consumed. This mind-set preserves fuel for later in
the flight when options may be more limited.
6.4.27 One procedural means to manage fuel at this critical point in the flight, in accordance with the requirements
of the State’s Authority, permits the PIC to use the alternate fuel to continue to proceed to, or hold at, the destination
aerodrome. Such a procedure is commonly known as “Diverting or Committing” to destination.
6.4.28 It is typically used when the PIC decides a safe landing, with not less than final reserve fuel remaining, can
be accomplished at the destination aerodrome. The PIC makes this decision after taking into account the traffic and the
operational conditions prevailing at the destination and destination alternate aerodromes. Practically speaking this in-
flight re-analysis and adjustment option simply allows the PIC to convert fuel originally allocated for a diversion to an
alternate aerodrome into fuel to proceed or “divert to” the destination. The additional circumstances in which “Diverting
or Committing” is permitted typically include:
a) an assured landing in the prevailing and immediate forecast conditions (including likely single
equipment failures); or
b) an allocated Expected Approach Time or confirmation from ATC of maximum likely delay.
6.4.29 This is just one example of an in-flight fuel management policy or procedure that recognizes when a flight
crew’s assessment of the traffic and meteorological conditions may be more accurate for the destination than for any
alternate aerodrome. It is important to note that most diversion decisions whether to divert to the destination or an
alternate imply landing without a further alternate aerodrome available making the decision to “divert to destination”
nothing unique. Whatever policies and procedures are developed by an operator, however, should be crafted to ensure
that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed, with the planned final
reserve remaining, to a suitable aerodrome where a safe landing can be made.
6.5 PROTECTING FINAL RESERVE FUEL
6.5.1 Annex 6, Part I, SARPs provide the framework for the protection of final reserve fuel beginning with actions
to be taken during the planning stage and culminating when a flight lands safely. Three SARPs in particular provide the
foundation for this framework by assigning responsibilities, defining terms and recommending actions designed to foster
an operational culture that requires the continual evaluation of usable fuel remaining. Taken together these SARPs can
also form the foundation of an operator’s in-flight fuel management policy:
a) Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2, clearly assigns the responsibility for the in-flight management of fuel to the
PIC by stating that the pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel
remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing
can be made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing; and
b) Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3, defines final reserve fuel as the amount of fuel calculated using the estimated
mass on arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome or the destination aerodrome, when no
destination alternate aerodrome is required:
— for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 45 minutes, under speed
and altitude conditions specified by the State of the Operator; or
— for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed
at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions, and;
c) Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.4, recommends that operators should determine one final reserve fuel value for
each aeroplane type and variant in their fleet rounded up to an easily recalled figure.
6.5.2 The values determined in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.4, are not intended as substitutes for the
exact values calculated in accordance with 4.3.6.3, but rather as a quick reference for flight crews to consider during fuel
planning and in-flight fuel management activities. Tables 6-3 and 6-4 are simple representations of a Final Reserve Fuel
Table provided for illustrative purposes only. Actual charts should represent fuel in the unit of measure appropriate for
the operation and be based on data derived from the aeroplane flight manuals (AFM) for all types used in operations. In
any case, the conditions upon which the table is predicated should be clearly stipulated in the table notes or
accompanying description.
Table 6-3. Example of a basic final reserve fuel table
EXAMPLE ONLY
Final Reserve Fuel
Aeroplane Type in kilograms (pounds)
DC-9 1 400 (3 000)
MD-88/90 1 400 (3 000)
B-737 1 400 (3 000)
B-757 1 600 (3 500)
B-767 2 500 (5 300)
B-777 3 700 (8 000)
B-747-400 5 000 (11 000)
A-319/320 1 400 (3 000)
A330 2 800 (6 000)
Notes.—
• Chart values are provided for information purposes only. Flight crews should calculate the expected landing
fuel remaining and final reserve fuel in accordance with in-flight fuel check policy and procedure.
• Final reserve fuel is the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft)
above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions.
• Chart values are rounded up to the nearest 100, include tank gauge tolerance and are based on maximum
landing mass.
6.5.3 While Table 6-3 represents a basic example of a table containing final reserve fuel approximations by
aeroplane type, a slightly more sophisticated table may be appropriate as part of an overall procedural strategy to
protect final reserve fuel by providing approximate fuel consumption data. Such a table, for example, could address the
fuel required to conduct an approach and further aids the PIC in determining an impending low fuel state. Table 6-4
incorporates approximate fuel burn data from the Final Approach Fix in order to better illustrate the point in the flight
when a landing below final reserve fuel may be likely.
6.5.4 Whatever guidance is provided to the flight crew it must provide the practical means to protect final reserve
fuel in the form of in-flight fuel management policy and procedure in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.1, including
when necessary, instructions for the declaration of MINIMUM FUEL or a fuel emergency in accordance with Annex 6,
Part I, 4.3.7.2.2 and 4.3.7.2.3, respectively.
Table 6-4. Example of a Final Reserve Fuel Table that incorporates FAF fuel
EXAMPLE ONLY
Final Approach Fuel

in kilograms (pounds)
Aeroplane Final Reserve Fuel Approximate fuel required to complete an
Type In kilograms (pounds) approach from the FAF
DC-9 1 400 (3 000) 180 (400)
MD-88/90 1 400 (3 000) 140 (300)
B-737 1 400 (3 000) 180 (400)
B-757 1 600 (3 500) 140 (300)
B-767 2 500 (5 300) 230 (500)
B-777 3 700 (8 000) 450 (1 000)
B-747-400 5 000 (11 000) 950 (2 000)
A-319/320 1 400 (3 000) 180 (400)
A330 2 800 (6 000) 270 (600)
Notes.—
• Chart values are provided for information purposes only. Flight crews should calculate the expected landing
fuel remaining and final reserve fuel in accordance with in-flight fuel check policy and procedure.
• Final reserve fuel is the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft)
above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions.
• Chart values are rounded up to the nearest 100, include tank gauge tolerance and are based on maximum
landing mass.
6.6 IN-FLIGHT FUEL CHECKS AND FUEL MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
As previously stated, Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.1, requires operators to establish policies and procedures to ensure that
in-flight fuel checks and fuel management are performed by the flight crew and flight operations officers, as applicable.
Practically speaking, and in order for successful fuel management to occur, operator policies and procedures typically
require that at regular intervals and/or specified points indicated in the OFP or when otherwise required, the PIC:
a) compares actual versus planned fuel consumption;
b) verifies fuel quantity used against the fuel quantity expected to be used up to that point;
c) verifies fuel quantity remaining against the computed planned remaining quantity at that point;
d) reconciles FMS information with engine fuel flow and fuel quantity indicators;
e) records and forwards fuel use and quantity information to the data collection system. Such data could
also be used to support real-time re-analysis and adjustment of aeroplane performance and allow for
tactical operational changes as required. Optimum use of data for this purpose may require the use of
an advanced operational control system supported by real-time communications capabilities with
aeroplanes in flight. Some of the possible tactical changes could include:
1) the use of Dynamic Airborne Re-route Procedure (DARP);
2) en-route re-clearance capability;
3) recalculation of critical decision points;
4) re-planning in event of system failure;
f) identifies discrepancies between the information provided by the OFP and actual fuel remaining;
g) investigates any discrepancy between the information provided by the OFP and the actual fuel
remaining to find the origin and to initiate appropriate action;
h) considers operational factors and potential actions to be taken if flight planning assumptions are
invalidated (re-analysis and adjustment). This is of particular importance if, as a result of an in-flight
fuel check, the usable fuel remaining is insufficient to complete the flight as originally planned. In such
cases the PIC would typically evaluate the traffic and the operational conditions prevailing at the
destination aerodrome, at the destination alternate aerodrome (if applicable) and at any other
adequate aerodrome before deciding on a new course of action;
i) if operating in accordance with in-flight re-planning, determines if applicable conditions are satisfied to
continue beyond the point of in-flight re-planning (re-dispatch/re-release point, DP, etc.) and continue
to the planned commercial destination;
j) if operating to an isolated aerodrome, re-calculates the position of the PNR based on actual fuel
consumption and fuel remaining and determines if applicable conditions are satisfied for proceeding
beyond the PNR to the destination aerodrome;
k) determines if remaining fuel is sufficient to complete the flight safely as planned. This is practically
accomplished by calculating the usable fuel remaining upon landing at the destination aerodrome and
determining if it will be sufficient to protect the required alternate fuel plus final reserve fuel or final
reserve fuel, as applicable;
l) communicates with operational control personnel when necessary to establish appropriate

contingency plans, including diversion to another aerodrome, if applicable. This is particularly
important in the case of EDTO and in the case of operations to distant aerodromes where no alternate
aerodromes are available;
m) communicates with ATC to request delay information in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.1;
n) declares MINIMUM FUEL when required in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.2;
o) declares MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL to indicate a fuel emergency when required in
accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.3;
p) takes the appropriate action and proceeds to the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be
made.
6.7 REQUESTING DELAY INFORMATION FROM ATC
4.3.7.2.1 The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated
circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the final reserve fuel
plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an
isolated aerodrome.
6.7.2 Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to define the conditions that require the PIC to
request delay information from ATC. Such operator guidance is part of the overall in-flight fuel management strategy to
ensure planned reserves are used as intended or required. They should also mark the beginning of a process that will
ultimately preclude a landing with less than final reserve fuel on board. It should be noted that the request for delay
information, in and of itself, is not a request for assistance or an indication of urgency, but a procedural means for the
flight crew to determine an appropriate course of action when confronted with unanticipated delays.
6.7.3 There is no specific phraseology recommended for use with ATC in this case as each situation may be
different. The pilot would use the information obtained from this request, however, to determine the best course of action
up to and including a determination of when it would be necessary to divert to an alternate aerodrome and/or make
additional declarations related to the fuel state of the flight. Example phraseology as well as the appropriate time to use
it is contained in section 6.10 of this chapter.
6.8 MINIMUM FUEL DECLARATIONS
6.8.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.2, complements 4.3.7.2.1 by stating:
4.3.7.2.2 The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring
MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any
change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned final
reserve fuel.
Note 1.— The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options
have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing
clearance may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel. This is not an emergency
situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.
Note 2.— Guidance on declaring minimum fuel is contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel
Management Manual (Doc 9976).
6.8.2 As previously stated, Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2, specifically assigns the responsibility to the PIC of
continually ensuring that the amount of fuel remaining is sufficient to land at a specific aerodrome with final reserve fuel
in the tanks. Standard 4.3.7.2.2 further defines this essential responsibility and establishes a common phraseology for
use in communicating a potential, impending or imminent low fuel state to ATC.
6.8.3 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.2, also complements the MINIMUM FUEL definition in the Procedures for Air
Navigation Services — Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM) (Doc 4444) where provisions to elicit action on the part of
air traffic controllers have been expanded, clarifying to pilots when and how to declare a state of MINIMUM FUEL. The
expansion of provisions in PANS-ATM is designed to codify the common purpose of protecting final reserve fuel and
also addresses inter alia:
a) coordination in respect to the provision of flight information and alerting services whereby
circumstances experienced by an aeroplane that has declared MINIMUM FUEL or is experiencing an
emergency are reported by the transferring unit to the accepting unit and any other ATS unit that may
be concerned with the flight;
b) standard ATC phraseology used by ATC including the provision of delay information after a (pilot)
declaration of MINIMUM FUEL; and
c) ATC procedures related to other in-flight contingencies including actions to be taken after pilot
declarations of a fuel emergency or MINIMUM FUEL.
6.8.4 Conformance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.2, presumes operator policies and procedures already foster a
culture that protects final reserve fuel. Such policies and procedures, at a minimum:
a) require the PIC to continually assess expected landing fuel in accordance with the operator’s in-flight
fuel management policy and procedure;
b) identify conditions or events that trigger flight crew actions to protect final reserve fuel and, when
necessary, expedite a landing at the nearest suitable aerodrome (e.g. unplanned arrival delays,
unforecast meteorological conditions, fuel over-burn);
c) enable the PIC to easily identify or calculate the remaining usable fuel as well as determine when any
further delay may result in a landing at a specific aerodrome with less than final reserve fuel
remaining; and
d) require the PIC to declare MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome,
any change to the existing clearance to the aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned
final reserve fuel.
6.8.5 After a request for delay information, the MINIMUM FUEL declaration likely represents the second in a
series of steps to ensure remaining fuel on board an aeroplane is used as planned and final reserve fuel is ultimately
protected. Practically speaking, the PIC should declare MINIMUM FUEL when, based on the current ATC clearance, the
anticipated amount of fuel remaining upon landing at the aerodrome to which the aeroplane is committed is approaching
the planned final reserve fuel quantity. This declaration is intended to convey to the applicable air traffic controller that as
long as the current clearance is not modified, the flight should be able to proceed as cleared without compromising the
PIC’s responsibility to protect final reserve fuel.
Note 1.— Pilots should not expect any form of priority handling as a result of a MINIMUM FUEL declaration.
ATC will, however, advise the flight crew of any additional expected delays as well as coordinate when transferring
control of the aeroplane to ensure other ATC units are aware of the flight’s fuel state.
Note 2.— MINIMUM FUEL declaration scenarios and recommended phraseology for use in communicating
with ATC are provided in section 6.10 of this chapter.
6.9 EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS
6.9.1 Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.3, complements 4.3.7.2.2 by stating:
4.3.7.2.3 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting

MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon
landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final
reserve fuel.
Note 1.— The planned final reserve fuel refers to the value calculated in 4.3.6.3 e) 1) or 2) and is
the minimum amount of fuel required upon landing at any aerodrome.
Note 2.— The words “MAYDAY FUEL” describe the nature of the distress conditions as required
in Annex 10, Volume II, 5.3.2.1.1, b) 3.
Note 3.— Guidance on procedures for in-flight fuel management are contained in the Flight
Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).
6.9.2 The last in a series of procedural steps to ensure the safe completion of a flight is the declaration of an
emergency. Conformance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.3, requires the PIC to declare a situation of emergency by
broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL when the calculated usable fuel to be available upon landing at the
nearest suitable aerodrome where a safe landing can be made will be less than the planned final reserve fuel. This
declaration provides the clearest and most urgent expression of an emergency situation brought about by insufficient
usable fuel remaining to protect the planned final reserve. It communicates that immediate action must be taken by the
PIC and the ATC Authority to ensure that the aeroplane can land as soon as possible.
6.9.3 The MAYDAY declaration is used when all opportunities to protect final reserve fuel have been exploited
and, in the judgment of the PIC, the flight will now land with less than final reserve fuel remaining in the tanks. The word
fuel is used as part of the declaration simply to convey the nature of the emergency to ATC. It is also important to note
an emergency declaration not only opens all options for pilots (available closed runways, military fields, etc.) but it also
allows ATC added flexibility in handling an aeroplane.
Note.— MAYDAY (due to fuel) declaration scenarios and recommended phraseology for use in
communicating with ATC are provided in section 6.10 of this chapter.
6.10 MINIMUM FUEL AND MAYDAY (DUE TO FUEL) DECLARATION SCENARIOS
6.10.1 Annex 6, Part I and PANS-ATM are aligned in their guidance to ensure that all participants in the
international aviation community share a common understanding regarding the definition and intent of the terms
MINIMUM FUEL and MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL. The following scenarios illustrate how and when to use each
term and are also provided as a means to differentiate clearly between such declarations.
6.10.2 It is important to note that a common element in every scenario is that each time MINIMUM FUEL is
declared, the PIC has already committed to land at a specific aerodrome and is concerned that a landing may occur with
less than final reserve fuel in the tanks. It is equally important to note that although the coordinated escalation process
(with ATC) related to the protection of final reserve fuel typically occurs in three steps, each situation is different and may
be resolved at any stage in the process. The three steps in the escalation process are:
Protecting final reserve fuel in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7
Step 1 Request delay information when required (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.1).
Declare MINUMUM FUEL when committed to land at a specific aerodrome and any change in
Step 2 the existing clearance may result in a landing with less than planned final reserve fuel (in
accordance with 4.3.7.2.2).
Declare a fuel emergency when the calculated fuel on landing at the nearest suitable
Step 3 aerodrome, where a safe landing can be made, will be less than the planned final reserve fuel
(in accordance with 4.3.7.2.3).
Scenario 1: MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL — An aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan with a destination alternate
aerodrome on file.
Narrative
An aeroplane arrives in the terminal area and is instructed to hold south of its destination (KXYZ). The meteorological
conditions are deteriorating rapidly in the vicinity of the destination aerodrome with a front moving in faster than
expected. The flight plan fuel uplifted for the flight allotted 60 minutes of fuel for holding upon arrival to compensate
for unanticipated meteorological conditions and traffic congestion delays. The flight plan also allotted fuel for the filed
alternate (KABC) located 250 miles north of the destination.
Upon initial contact with ATC, the flight is told to hold for 45 minutes. In the holding pattern, the flight crew completes
their normal in-flight duties including re-checking the destination meteorological conditions, considering a possible
diversion at a pre-determined time as well as determining the point in time and fuel remaining required to depart the
holding pattern for the destination aerodrome.
After 40 minutes of holding, ATC directs the flight crew to proceed to a holding fix closer to the destination and clears
them to descend to a lower altitude. The Expect Further Clearance (EFC) issued for the new holding fix adds
20 minutes of flight time which will burn the remaining contingency fuel. The flight crew recalculates the expected
landing fuel at destination based on the new EFC and is concerned that they will begin burning into required
reserves.
The flight crew conveys their current fuel status to ATC and requests additional delay information (in accordance with
4.3.7.2.1). ATC then advises that they will be cleared to the destination (original aerodrome of intended landing) at or
before the previously issued EFC time. Five minutes prior to the EFC time, the aeroplane is issued a clearance to the
IAF and is informed that no further delays should occur.
Shortly after issuing the clearance to the IAF, ATC informs the flight crew that low-level wind shear warnings were
reported by several preceding aeroplanes on final approach to KXYZ. The flight crew elects to continue but
unfortunately the meteorological conditions at the destination aerodrome continue to deteriorate, with prevailing winds
and visibility that limit arrivals to one runway. The flight crew flies an approach to the only available runway and
executes a missed approach due to a wind shear alert on short final approach.
Aware that all contingency fuel has been consumed, the flight crew asks and receives a clearance to their alternate
aerodrome (KABC). The PIC simultaneously declares MINIMUM FUEL (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.2) based on fuel
remaining calculations, their commitment to the alternate aerodrome and the possibility that any delays incurred en
route to their alternate aerodrome may result in a landing at the alternate with less than final reserve fuel remaining.
ATC advises that no further delays are expected and clears the flight to the alternate aerodrome. En route, the
aeroplane is advised that the runway at the alternate aerodrome is temporarily closed due to an incapacitated
aeroplane. The PIC immediately declares MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.3). ATC
informs the aeroplane that aerodrome KJKL, a military field, is available and not much farther than KABC. The flight
crew is aware of the suitability of the KJKL and informs ATC that they will go direct to KJKL. The aeroplane is cleared
as requested and lands at KJKL with 80 per cent of final reserve fuel in the tanks (due to the proximity of the
emergency divert field).
Explanation
In this scenario, when the flight first held in the vicinity of the original destination (KXYZ), the PIC could still divert to
the alternate aerodrome while maintaining the appropriate fuel reserves including final reserve fuel. As such and at
that point in the flight, a MINIMUM FUEL declaration would be inappropriate as the flight had yet to commit to an
aerodrome, and there was sufficient fuel on board to protect final reserve fuel upon landing at either the destination or
alternate.
The second holding clearance, however, threatened to consume all of the flight’s fuel allocated for holding thereby
reducing the options to a landing at the destination if additional delays were unlikely or a pre-emptive diversion to the
alternate aerodrome. The potential to burn into the fuel required to divert to the alternate triggered the query
regarding additional delays.
When the flight missed the approach at the planned destination and elected to commit to the alternate, the PIC
declared MINIMUM FUEL as final reserve fuel could no longer be protected if any additional delays were
encountered. Unfortunately, while en route to the alternate (KABC), additional delays were encountered requiring the
PIC to declare an emergency. By broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, the PIC utilized his/her
emergency authority to proceed to and land at a military field (KJKL) that would have been otherwise unavailable.
R/T examples, edited for brevity and are not all-inclusive radio transmissions
Pilot Controller
KXYZ Approach ICAO123 FL 240 ROGER ICAO123 cleared DIRECT WLCOM and I have
holding instructions, advise when ready to copy
ROGER ICAO123 DIRECT WLCOM ready to

copy
ICAO123 HOLD as published at WLCOM fix Expect

further clearance at 1035
Readback
ICAO123 proceed DIRECT GONER DESCEND TO FL

190 and I have further holding instructions, advise when
ready to copy
ROGER ICAO123 DIRECT GONER ready to ICAO123 HOLD as published at GONER fix Expect further
copy clearance at 1120 UTC
Readback and (free text) Have the EFC times ICAO123 No further delays expected
been fairly accurate?
ICAO123 resume the FASTT arrival and cleared for the

ILS RWY 35 approach, be advised low level wind shear
has been reported
Readback
KXYZ Approach ICAO123 on the missed ROGER ICAO123 CLEARED to KABC via DIRECT ZZZ
approach requesting clearance to KABC VOR and J-63, CLIMB TO FLIGHT LEVEL TWO FOUR
ZERO
ROGER ICAO 123 cleared to KABC via DIRECT ROGER MINIMUM FUEL
ZZZ VOR and J-63, leaving ONE ZERO
THOUSAND for FLIGHT LEVEL TWO FOUR
ZERO
MINIMUM FUEL
ICAO123 be advised that runway 27/09 is temporarily

closed due to an incapacitated aeroplane, it is estimated
to open in 30 min.
ROGER ICAO123 MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY ROGER ICAO123 MAYDAY FUEL, KJKL aerodrome has
FUEL a 4 KM runway and is 30 NM at your 12 o’clock
Readback
Outcome
In this scenario, when the aeroplane executed the missed approach at KXYZ and proceeded to the alternate
aerodrome KABC, the flight was still operating as planned. That is to say, the flight plan fuel accounted for the
possibility of missing an approach at the destination and proceeding to the alternate aerodrome. Due to the
subsequent delays at KXYZ and a decision to divert to KABC, however, it became apparent that little if any additional
delay could be accepted, thus triggering the declaration of MINIMUM FUEL.
Up to this point the flight could still be considered “routine,” until the flight crew was informed that the runway at KABC
was temporarily closed. This warranted the MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL declaration as all apparently
available options would have, in the judgment of the PIC, resulted in landing with less than the planned final reserve
fuel. Declaring an emergency, however, provided the PIC with additional options. In this case KJKL, a normally
unavailable military field, became a viable option for the aeroplane to able to land while protecting as much remaining
fuel as possible.
Scenario 2: MINIMUM FUEL — An aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan with a filed destination alternate aerodrome
and diverts after holding near the original destination aerodrome.
Narrative
An aeroplane arrives in the vicinity of the destination aerodrome (MMAB) at 1500 UTC with flight planned fuel on
board. The aeroplane is asked to hold with an EFC time of 1510 UTC due to traffic congestion. This is acceptable to
the PIC as sufficient contingency fuel was uplifted for unanticipated delays. Time passes and it becomes apparent
that ten minutes of holding will be insufficient to ease the congestion. The PIC requests delay information from ATC
(in accordance with 4.3.7.2.1) and is informed to expect an additional 15-minute delay and is subsequently issued a
new EFC time of 1525 UTC.
The PIC checks the fuel state and informs ATC that he cannot hold any longer than the original ten minutes and
requests a clearance to his alternate aerodrome (MMXZ). The PIC receives a new clearance and proceeds to MMXZ
which now becomes the committed aerodrome of intended landing as he has consumed most of his contingency fuel
and is concerned that he may begin burning into required reserves.
Meteorological conditions encountered en route require a reroute to the alternate aerodrome which in turn requires
more fuel. When the aeroplane is clear of the meteorological conditions and is proceeding to the alternate aerodrome
the PIC calculates that, barring any further delays, the flight will be landing with fuel slightly above the planned final
reserve fuel quantity. He also notes that any changes to the current clearance to the alternate would likely result in a
landing with less than final reserve fuel in the tanks.
The PIC informs ATC of the situation by declaring MINIMUM FUEL (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.2). The controller
acknowledges the MINIMUM FUEL call and informs the flight crew that no further delays are expected. The
aeroplane proceeds to and lands at the alternate aerodrome as previously cleared and the PIC fulfils his
responsibility to protect final reserve fuel.
Explanation
In this scenario the aeroplane was subject to delays that consumed most of the planned contingency fuel and later
diverted to the alternate aerodrome (MMXZ). In addition to a small amount of contingency fuel and the planned final
reserve fuel, the flight had uplifted the fuel to proceed to an alternate aerodrome. A MINIMUM FUEL state did not
exist while proceeding to the original destination aerodrome (MMAB) as the option to divert to the alternate without
sacrificing planned reserves was still a viable option.
When the aeroplane, however, encountered WX en route requiring a reroute to MMXZ, the remaining contingency
fuel was used. Based on the fuel used and once the aeroplane was back on course to MMXZ, the PIC determined
that any further delays en route to the alternate aerodrome to which the flight was committed to land would result in
landing with less than final reserve fuel.
The MINIMUM FUEL call was used appropriately in this case as it described the fuel state of the aeroplane to the
controller clearly, succinctly and in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.2). In other words, the declaration
informed the controller that additional delays could not be accepted and the controller responded by informing the
flight crew that no delays were expected. The controller also provided additional relevant information, kept the flight
informed of any additional delays and passed along any relevant information when transferring the aeroplane to other
ATC units. Both ATC and the flight crew maintained a heightened state of fuel situational awareness and the
aeroplane proceeded to the aerodrome as cleared and landed uneventfully.
It is important to note that in this case, the MINIMUM FUEL phraseology was used as intended to convey the fuel
status of the aeroplane. It was neither a declaration of urgency nor an emergency declaration, and the aeroplane was
treated as cleared keeping the same approach sequence. However, ATC did take action to keep the flight crew
informed of any delays or changes to the previously issued clearance and was required to coordinate with other ATC
units to ensure the MINIMUM FUEL state of the flight was passed along.
Pilot Controller
MMAB Approach ICAO123 passing ONE TWO ICAO123 I have holding instructions due to traffic
THOUSAND for ONE ZERO THOUSAND congestion. Advise when ready to copy.
ICAO123 ready to copy ICAO123 HOLD as published at WAITY fix EFC 1510 UTC
Readback
ICAO123 due to continued traffic congestion your new EFC

is 1525 UTC, continue holding at WAITY MAINTAIN ONE
ZERO THOUSAND
ICAO123 unable to hold any longer and ROGER ICAO123 CLEARED TO MMXZ VIA DIRECT XYZ
requesting clearance to MMXZ VOR and V-43, CLIMB TO ONE FIVE THOUSAND
Readback
ICAO123 requesting deviations to the right for ICAO123 you are CLEARED to deviate right of course as
weather ahead. requested, advise when able to PROCEED DIRECT
MMXZ.
Readback
ICAO123 proceeding direct MMXZ and ROGER ICAO123 understand you are declaring MINIMUM
declaring MINIMUM FUEL at this time. FUEL. Expect no further delays continue as previously
cleared, you are number 5 for the approach.
Outcome
Practically speaking, the events described in this scenario are not out of the ordinary. The MINIMUM FUEL
declaration was simply used by the PIC to make ATC aware that circumstances had reached a point where any
further change to the current clearance could have resulted in an emergency due to fuel. However, the flight
concluded at the alternate aerodrome (MMXZ), having met all fuel requirements including the protection of final
reserve fuel.
Scenario 3: MINIMUM FUEL — The aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan with a filed alternate and is forced to divert to
an alternate aerodrome.
Narrative
ICAO123 is a new large aeroplane (NLA) flying across the Pacific to YSAB. The filed alternate aerodrome, YSXZ, is
located 150 miles south and is the only available alternate aerodrome due to a stationary frontal system surrounding
YSAB. When ICAO123 is approximately 200 NM from YSAB, ATC advises that the destination aerodrome is closed
until further notice due to a security breach. The flight crew accomplish their in-flight planning duties in accordance
with operator policy and procedure to include: checking the meteorological conditions, considering diversion options,
and completing required fuel calculations.
As a result of these duties, the flight crew decide to proceed to the alternate aerodrome, YSXZ, where they expect to
arrive with 100 min or more of fuel. The flight crew requests delay information from ATC (in accordance with
4.3.7.2.1) and informs the controller that while not yet ready to declare MINIMUM FUEL, they are committed to a
landing at YSXZ. ATC responds that delays in the YSXZ terminal area are likely given the number of diversions from
YSAB and clears ICAO123 to a fix 50 NM from YSXZ with holding instructions and a 25 min EFC time.
As more and more aeroplanes divert to YSXZ and 25 minutes pass in the hold, ATC directs the flight crew of ICAO
123 to proceed to another holding fix closer to YSXZ, clears them to a lower altitude and issues a revised EFC that
adds 40 min of flight time. ICAO123 acknowledges the new clearance and informs ATC that if they do not proceed to
YSXZ at or before the revised EFC time they will be declaring MINIMUM FUEL (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.2). ATC
acknowledges the transmission.
Shortly before the revised EFC time, the flight crew declares MINIMUM FUEL (at this point the aeroplane is
estimating to land with 35 min of fuel and, in the judgment of the PIC, any additional delays may result in a landing at
YSXZ with less than final reserve fuel in the tanks).
What the flight crew did not know is that prior to the MINIMUM FUEL declaration by the PIC, ATC had already
intended to clear ICAO123 for the approach. The controller asks whether an approach clearance at the conclusion of
the present circuit in the holding pattern would be acceptable to the flight crew. The flight crew accepts the
controller’s offer and ATC issues an approach clearance. The flight lands with more than the final reserve fuel in the
tanks.
Explanation
The events described in this scenario had the potential to deteriorate rapidly into an emergency. The flight crew and
ATC were able to resolve the issue in an orderly and uneventful manner, however, based on a common
understanding of the fuel state of the aeroplane. When ATC informed the flight crew that YSAB was closed and they
decided to proceed to their alternate aerodrome (YSXZ), the initial calculation indicated that they would arrive with the
final reserve fuel (30 min) plus 70 minutes (100 min total fuel). Although the aeroplane was committed to land at
YSXZ, as there were no other apparent options, the flight still had some operational flexibility (70 minutes fuel) and
was not presently in a MINIMUM FUEL state in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.7.2.2.
When ICAO123 was cleared closer to YSXZ and was given an additional holding clearance, the flight crew
proactively informed ATC that the EFC time issued was very close to the point where no further delay could be
accepted. Finally, with the second EFC time approaching and the flight without an approach clearance, a MINIMUM
FUEL state was declared. ATC consulted with the flight crew about the intention of issuing an approach clearance,
subsequently cleared the aeroplane for the approach, and the aeroplane landed with more than final reserve fuel.
Pilot Controller
ICAO123, be advised YSAB is closed until further notice for

security reasons
ROGER, ICAO123 STANBY
Center, ICAO 123 request CLEARANCE to ICAO123 CLEARED to YSXZ via DIRECT SUNNY and
YSXZ B850
ROGER ICAO123 CLEARED to YSXZ via ROGER ICAO123 are you declaring MINIMUM FUEL
DIRECT SUNNY and B850 be advised YSXZ is
our only option and we may need to declare
MINIMUM FUEL.
NEGATIVE not at this time
Readback
ICAO123 HOLD at SOONR fix as published EFC 1030
Readback
ICAO123 DIRECT to CLSER fix and HOLD as published

EFC 1110
ROGER ICAO123 DIRECT CLSER and HOLD

as published EFC 1110. Be advised if we are
not cleared for the approach at 1110 we will be
declaring MINIMUM FUEL
Readback
YSXZ approach ICAO123 MINIMUM FUEL ROGER ICAO123, are you able to finish the holding pattern
before being cleared for the approach?
AFFIRMATIVE ICAO123 after CLSER CLEARED for the ILS RWY 29

approach
Readback
Outcome
This scenario while not necessarily routine benefited from a common understanding of the term MINIMUM FUEL that
allowed the flight crew and ATC to manage the situation appropriately. In this case, the closure of YSAB actually
posed a bigger problem for ATC as several aeroplanes were now diverting to YSXZ. The flight crew proactively kept
ATC informed of their fuel state, and ATC shared their intentions with the flight crew (conclude the present hold
before proceeding with the approach clearance). The radiotelephony between the flight crew and ATC was concise
and focused on solutions rather than further describing the problem in keeping with the use of the term MINIMUM
FUEL as intended in the SARPs.
Scenario 4: MINIMUM FUEL — The aeroplane is on an IFR flight plan with a filed alternate and is forced to divert to
an alternate aerodrome.
Narrative
ICAO Flight 99 arrives in the terminal area of its planned destination aerodrome, KDEN, with 60 minutes of
contingency fuel, alternate fuel to enable the crew to fly to their filed alternate aerodrome (KCOS), and final reserve
fuel intact. After holding for some time and burning most of the planned contingency fuel, the crew is advised by ATC
of an indefinite delay at the destination aerodrome due to unexpected runway closures. Specifically, ATC advises that
the primary runway is closed due to a disabled aeroplane and braking action reported as nil on all other runways. In
effect, there is no revised EFC time and KDEN is closed to operations until further notice.
The PIC elects to divert to the planned alternate aerodrome, KCOS. Although the planned contingency fuel was
mostly consumed, the planned alternate fuel remains intact and is enough fuel to fly to KCOS. Due to severe
meteorological conditions throughout the region, there are no other alternate aerodromes available that would allow
the flight crew to conserve fuel. Despite operating in accordance with flight planning assumptions, the PIC declares
MINIMUM FUEL (in accordance with 4.3.7.2.2) at this point as the flight is committed to landing at the alternate,
KCOS, and any further delays from this point in the flight may result in a landing with less than final reserve fuel in the
tanks.
This has not yet developed into an emergency as the flight still has a bit of contingency fuel, the planned alternate
fuel to proceed to KCOS plus final reserve fuel remaining. The flight crew, however, is concerned that based on the
remaining contingency fuel, very little delay can be accepted. The crew gains additional endurance time en route to
KCOS due to better than expected flight conditions, favourable winds and direct routing. They pass this information
along to ATC for coordination purposes, and the flight lands uneventfully in KCOS with more than final reserve fuel
remaining in the tanks.
Explanation
This scenario is very straightforward and clearly illustrates the appropriate use of the MINIMUM FUEL declaration. In
this case, the intent of MINIMUM FUEL is simply to aid the PIC in his/her responsibility to protect final reserve fuel
once the flight is committed to a landing at a specific aerodrome. It is apparent that, due to the severity of the
meteorological conditions in this example, the crew’s alternatives were quite limited. It is important to note, however,
that the PIC would be required to declare MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL had additional delays been
encountered en route to the alternate aerodrome and final reserve fuel could no longer be protected. It is equally
important to note that had a closer alternate been available, the MINIMUM FUEL declaration would have likely been
unnecessary.
In this case, however, the flight was able to successfully divert to its alternate (KCOS) and land without incident. The
news that KDEN was closed with no EFC or expected EFC was the primary factor in the PIC’s decision to commit to
a landing at KCOS, the planned alternate aerodrome (and in this scenario, the only available alternate). The PIC’s
commitment to land at KCOS, an inability to accept much, if any, delay and the responsibility to protect final reserve
fuel are the conditions that justify the MINIMUM FUEL declaration.
Pilot Controller
ICAO 99, be advised KDEN is closed until further notice.

There is a disabled aircraft on the Runway 34R and all other
runways have a reported braking action of “nil”. Please
advise intentions.
ICAO 99 please STANDBY
Denver Center, ICAO 99 requests ICAO 99 CLEARED to KCOS via DIRECT

CLEARANCE direct to KCOS
ICAO 99 proceeding direct to KCOS and ROGER, ICAO 99, Denver Center copies that you declaring
declaring MINIMUM FUEL. MINIMUM FUEL. We will pass that information on to the
next sector.
ICAO 99
Next Sector:
ICAO 99, Denver Center, descend TO Flight Level 240,

expect no holding at KCOS. You are number one for the
arrival. Understand you are MINIMUM FUEL
Readback
Denver Center, ICAO 99 confirms we are

MINIMUM FUEL.
ICAO 99, Denver Center copies.
Outcome
This is a straightforward example that illustrates the proper use of the MINIMUM FUEL declaration. Such scenarios
are endless and can be rooted in unfavourable meteorological conditions, mechanical problems, traffic, or other
unanticipated factors. Once again, the key principles in understanding the use of this term are first: the commitment
to an aerodrome with no other alternatives available, and second: protecting final reserve fuel by ensuring to the
extent practicable that no additional delays will be encountered.
It is important to note that the PIC always maintains his/her ability to exercise emergency authority at any time. An
emergency declaration would include priority handling and afford the PIC the ability to land at the nearest aerodrome
available should the conditions warrant such action. The MINIMUM FUEL declaration, however, affords the PIC and
ATC the opportunity to work together to protect final reserve fuel and perhaps preclude an emergency from
developing.
6.11 FLIGHT CREW OCCURRENCE REPORTING PROCEDURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
6.11.1 Another important element of an operator’s fuel policy and the foundation of continuous improvement
initiatives is the collection and analysis of operational data. Flight crews and flight operations officers, if applicable, are
routinely exposed to many challenging situations in the course of flight operations. An operator, through reporting
systems and safety data collection tools, should be able to effectively acquire information from these operational
personnel about operations and the hazards encountered. Their responsibility to collect operational data and report
operational hazards should also be clearly communicated as part of the operator’s fuel and/or safety policies.
6.11.2 Flight crews and other operational personnel are also uniquely positioned to identify systemic hazards that
may not have been considered during alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning for a particular flight. It should be
clearly understood by all operational personnel that unreported concerns or unidentified hazards remaining in operations
threaten to invalidate the assumptions made during flight planning and may pose a safety risk to future operations.
Additionally, the fact that a previously unidentified hazard did not affect a particular flight does not ensure it will not affect
future flights. As such, it is important for operational personnel to report all such hazards to ensure systemic defenses
and risk controls are appropriately developed.
6.11.3 The development of policy and training relevant to available methods of operational and safety data
reporting is essential to ensure operational personnel are aware of, and appropriately use, the different tools available to
identify and communicate hazards and safety concerns. Training should also address each of the reporting means
available so that hazards or safety concerns may be brought to the attention of the relevant managers. Additionally,
operational personnel should be functionally aware of their role in overall safety risk management.
— — — — — — — —
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FLIGHT CREW PROCEDURES TO PRESERVE

CONTINGENCY FUEL AND FOR FLIGHT PLAN RE-ANALYSIS
AND ADJUSTMENT AFTER THE CONSUMPTION
OF CONTINGENCY FUEL PRIOR TO TAKE-OFF
1. General
This appendix contains example Operations Manual (OM) procedures for use by flight crew members to preserve
contingency fuel and to ultimately cope with its consumption prior to take-off. Such consumption may require analysis
and adjustment of the planned operation in accordance with Annex 6, 4.3.6.7, if contingency fuel was uplifted to cope
with unforeseen circumstances later in the flight or used as basis for the computation of additional fuel. In any case,
flight crews must be continuously aware of their fuel state to ensure the operation can be completed as planned or
adjusted as necessary to ensure safe flight completion.
2. Defining taxi fuel
Flight crews should be aware of the methodology used to calculate taxi fuel as well as have some notion as to its
accuracy. The OM, therefore, should contain clear guidance related to the computation of taxi fuel including the
limitations of any such computation. If, for example, the operator uses statistical taxi times, the data and criteria used as
basis for such computations should be clearly identified in the OM so flight crew may intervene as necessary to adjust
the fuel load to compensate for occurrences unaccounted for during initial pre-flight planning.
Note.— Refer to Appendix 6 to Chapter 5 for examples of the data and criteria used in a statistical taxi fuel
programme.
3. Flight preparation
The OM should contain procedures for flight crews to reconcile the planned taxi fuel, indicated on the OFP, against
actual operating conditions. Such procedures should direct the PIC to evaluate all available last-minute information to
determine the adequacy of the planned taxi fuel. If extended delays are anticipated that were not previously accounted
for, the PIC should be directed to update the flight plan fuel load by coordinating with the flight dispatcher, if applicable,
or by adding discretionary fuel. The overriding intent is to ensure, to the extent reasonably practicable, that the planned
taxi fuel plus discretionary fuel is equal to or exceeds the actual taxi fuel burned.
4. Taxi-out
The OM should contain guidance for flight crews to preserve fuel during taxi-out with the presumption that it will be
needed later in the flight as well as to preclude a return to the stand for re-fuelling. Such guidance should be part of the
operator’s overall policy for fuel management that typically includes coordination with operational control personnel when
applicable. In all cases, a strategy for the preservation of fuel begins with guidance for the number of engines to be used
6-A1-1
for taxi-out (e.g. smart starts) as well as instructions for shutting down an engine(s) when unanticipated and
exceptionally long taxi delays are announced by ATC. In defining the length of a taxi delay that should prompt a
shutdown, consideration should be given to the fuel required to start the APU and ultimately re-start the engines.
It is important to note that pre-flight planning ends and in-flight fuel management begins at flight commencement. As
such, the OM should contain guidance for the pilot monitoring (PM) to begin fuel checks during taxi-out. It is also
especially important for all flight crew members to be aware of if or when the flight may begin burning into contingency
fuel as well as the minimum fuel for take-off that would avoid taking known shortages into the air. Finally, the OM should
address when burning into other fuels is allowed. Any such guidance should be based on the assumption that the PIC,
and flight dispatcher if applicable, must determine prior to take-off that the remaining fuel is sufficient for the flight
conditions to the destination including conditions foreseeable due to weather, ATC and any others that could delay the
landing of the aircraft.
With all of this in mind, the OM should contain guidance for the calculation (or recalculation) of the minimum fuel for
take-off as soon as the risk of a delayed departure is apparent. Such guidance should require the PIC to use all
available resources inside and outside the flight deck to re-analyse and adapt the plan as necessary to ensure safe flight
completion. A multi-layered strategy should be employed that includes but is not limited to:
 evaluating the basis for the planned operation to determine if any conservatism is already “built in” to the flight
plan (e.g. lower than planned ZFW);
 using discretionary fuel (if loaded) to allow for extended taxi delays;
 adjusting the plan as applicable (and feasible) to reduce other required elements in the planned fuel calculation
by:
— using a slower cruising speed or cost index to reduce the required trip fuel and contingency fuel;
— seeking a more economical cruise level or route;
— amending the ATC flight plan to one using the reduced contingency fuel (RCF) procedure;
— amending the flight plan to RCF with no Dest Alternate if conditions permit;
— amending the ATC flight plan to one using re-dispatch or DP planning;
 verifying the critical scenario and the need for additional fuel; and
 considering going back to the gate to re-fuel and to avoid taking a known fuel shortage into the air.
______________________
REFERENCES
Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)],
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
European Union Commission Regulation (EC) No. 859/2008, 20 August 2008.
International Air Transport Association, Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) Implementation Guide, 1st Edition
Draft, October 2010.
International Air Transport Association, Fuel Efficiency Program Implementation Guidance Material, 1st Edition, 2011.
International Air Transport Association, International Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) Standards and Recommended
Practices Manual (ISM), Third Edition, effective October 2010.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Manual of Procedures for Operations Inspection, Certification and Continued
Surveillance, Doc 8335-AN/879, Advance fifth edition.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Operational Opportunities to Minimize Fuel Use and Reduce Emissions, Cir 303,
2004.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Outlook for Air Transport to the Year 2025, Cir 313, 2007.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Safety Management Manual (SMM), Doc 9859, 2nd Edition, 2009.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Code of Federal Regulations Title 14.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Information for Operators: “Flight Risk
Assessment Tool” InFO 07015, 2007.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC No: 120-42b;
“Extended Operations (ETOPS and Polar Operations)”, 2008.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC No: 120-92;
“Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Air Operators” 2006 (cancelled 2010).
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC No:120-92A; “Safety
Management System (SMS) for Aviation Service Providers” 2010 (cancelled 2015).
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Risk Management Handbook FAA-H-
8083-2; 2009 Edition.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Code of Federal Regulations
Title 14 ,Operations Specifications (B043), (B044), (B0343), (C355) and (C055).
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Code of Federal Regulations Title 14,
Exemption 3585.
— END —

9976 Fuel Planning and Fuel Management PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9976 Fuel Planning and Fuel Management PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9976 Fuel Planning and Fuel Management PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What guidance does it provide?

What guidance does it provide?

Doc 9976

Flight Planning and

First Edition — 2015

Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

Flight Planning and

First Edition — 2015

Approved by and published under the authority of the Secretary General

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

For ordering information and for a complete listing of sales agents

First edition, 2015

Doc 9976, Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

Amendments are announced in the supplements to the Products and Services

RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA

No. Date Entered by No. Date Entered by

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................ (v)

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. (xi)

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................ (xiii)

Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview of the Manual ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 History ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Chapter 2. Safety, Operational Efficiency and Emission Reduction ............................................................. 2-1

Chapter 3. Prescriptive and Performance-Based Compliance with Regulation........................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1

Appendix 1 to Chapter 3. National Alternate Aerodrome Selection and

Chapter 4. Understanding Prescriptive Compliance ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Appendix 2 to Chapter 4. Examples of Prescriptive Flight Planning Processes that conform

Chapter 5. Performance-based Compliance ................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Appendix 1 to Chapter 5. Example of requirements for an operational variation from

Appendix 2 to Chapter 5. Example of requirements for operational variations from

Appendix 3 to Chapter 5. Examples of requirements for flight planning processes that

Appendix 4 to Chapter 5. Examples of methodologies for contingency fuel calculations

Appendix 5 to Chapter 5. Example of a fuel consumption monitoring (FCM) programme

Appendix 6 to Chapter 5. Example of a statistical taxi fuel programme used to conform

Chapter 6. In-flight Fuel Management .............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACARS Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System

FUSG Fuel Use Sub-Group

TAF Aerodrome Forecast

City-pair. Route flown between an origin aerodrome to a planned destination aerodrome.

Performance-based regulatory oversight. A method, supplementary to the compliance-based oversight method,

Safety target value. The concrete objective of the level of safety.

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE MANUAL

1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO ANNEX 6, PART I, SARPS AND OTHER ICAO DOCUMENTS

b) operational variations to prescriptive alternate aerodrome selection regulations in accordance with

d) guidance on the application of operational variations including knowledge of implementation

f) knowledge of the components of operational control systems that support implementation of

g) knowledge of the SRM principles necessary to implement performance-based methods, systems,

k) guidance e material to assist in the dev

1.4.2 Alternate aerrodrome selecttion and fuel planning

Figure 1-1. Manual co

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL