EASA fuel scheme

Hi Henrik,
Not sure for Germany, but Switzerland just postponed it for 6 months indeed.

for germany, see NfL_2022-2-695

NfL_2022-2-695_1.pdf376.27 KB

Hi! Same story for Belgium, the implementation of the new regulations on AWO and Fuel Schemes has been postponed by 6 months until April 2023. From what I heard, many EU-countries have requested national opt-outs to EASA, mostly because the AMCs & GMs were published only a few weeks prior to their entry into force (and it would be interesting to have EASA's reaction on the numerous errors contained in the AMCs and GMs, whether regarding incorrect cross-referenes, incorrect dates, etc.) but also because many operators and/or NAAs do not have enough resources/time to cope with the implementation of the new regulations and all that it represents... (Update of affected company manuals & procedures; risk assessment; staff training & communication; conditional audits depending on prior/non-prior approvals, etc.). It was also interesting to note that operators were requested to perform a risk assessment on the postponement of the new rules, in addition to the risk assessment on its implementation, and that the form created by EASA contained wrong references to the regulations (in this case, the form referred to the import of chinese electric bicycles... Just for the anecdote ;-))

I apologise if this isn’t the correct forum but since you’ve mentioned EASA fuel scheme, I’m looking for clarification on when exactly two destination alternates are required

According to the lastest EASA policy states:
For each IFR flight, two destination alternate aerodromes should be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans, when the safety margins for meteorological conditions of OMA 8.1.5.4 (AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.182), and the planning minima of OMA 8.1.5.5 (AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182) cannot be met, or when no meteorological information is available for the selected destination aerodrome.

Can anyone provide an example lets say of a flight LHR-FRA with LVP etc cause my understanding was the ‘planning minimum’ only apply to destination alternate or Fuel ERA some some people are understanding the above as if the weather is below ‘planning minimum’ then you need two destination alternates. Can anyone clear up my confusion?

Hi,
I am dealing with a clarification about AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.182 : the tab APPLICATION OF AERODROME FORECASTS (TAF AND TREND) TO PRE-FLIGHT PLANNING. As you know, you should consider gust for pre-flight planning.
Here is the case :
- the destination aerodrome is accessible considering TAF
- after take-off, an amedment of TAF is available and there is gust which would infringe pre-flight weather conditions.
In-flight, should gust be taken into account as for pre-flight planning ? In the example : does that mean that the destination is not accessible anymore ?