4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by =ffb
Diversion fuel always used to attract contingency but maybe there has been a change which I am not aware of - anyone care to comment?
....but I'm pretty sure it is not in EUOPS.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, it ain't of course. And besides that, who uses 5% if you can get away with 3%?
[See Appendix 1 to OPS 1.255 point 1.4 for alternate fuel.]
[See Appendix 1 to OPS 1.255 point 1.4 for alternate fuel.]
Last edited by Denti; 2nd Oct 2012 at 19:25.
I know two very experienced colleagues (both checkers) who diverted just above minimum diversion fuel and landed well below final reserve. We have subsequently reviewed how we plan (increased) diversion fuel. But I would if possible still try to add some margin based on real world experience.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: W
Age: 42
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF I have found the discussion around fuel policies and procedures most enlightening. Can someone advise what contingency and planning is made for wind speed and direction when calculating required fuel. Evidently a long trip with a strong headwind will use a significantly higher amount of fuel than one with a strong tailwind, how does this factor in calculations and are potential changes in wind direction factored in fuel calcs?
PhilW1981, planning most certainly does include wind velocity and temperature on the planned route at the planned level. The crew shouldn't need to conduct such planning themselves, merely to review the results generated by the computer flight plan (CFP). A 5% contingency is normally included for unplanned deviations from the plan. The CFP will use the best met. data available, but the longer the flight the more likely that the met. data won't be as anticipated.
But the aircraft commander should review the CFP and make his/her own final decision, rather than accepting it verbatim. Will the optimum level be achieved, or will a lower level with a higher burn be likely? What about significant weather en-route requiring substantial route deviations. Or arriving at the destination's 'rush hour' and needing to hold?
Clever airline route planning using statistical met, assumed load factors and available slots is used for initial time table creation and can be both art and science - new routes over China and Russia have saved several airlines a lot of money, for example.
Airlines don't like carrying more fuel than necessary, but sometimes it's advantageous if fuel at destination is significantly more expensive than at the departure aerodrome. No airline wants to compromise payload available due to the weight of fuel carried; however, landing conditions (e.g. short / wet / icy runway etc.?) and take-off conditions (e.g. low atmospheric pressure, high air temprature, obstacles in the initial climb domain etc.?) often mean that the aeroplane cannot take-off with the required safety margins at maximum structural weight. So that's when an efficient flight dispatch organisation and an experienced aircraft commander have to work together to decide the optimum fuel load....
But the aircraft commander should review the CFP and make his/her own final decision, rather than accepting it verbatim. Will the optimum level be achieved, or will a lower level with a higher burn be likely? What about significant weather en-route requiring substantial route deviations. Or arriving at the destination's 'rush hour' and needing to hold?
Clever airline route planning using statistical met, assumed load factors and available slots is used for initial time table creation and can be both art and science - new routes over China and Russia have saved several airlines a lot of money, for example.
Airlines don't like carrying more fuel than necessary, but sometimes it's advantageous if fuel at destination is significantly more expensive than at the departure aerodrome. No airline wants to compromise payload available due to the weight of fuel carried; however, landing conditions (e.g. short / wet / icy runway etc.?) and take-off conditions (e.g. low atmospheric pressure, high air temprature, obstacles in the initial climb domain etc.?) often mean that the aeroplane cannot take-off with the required safety margins at maximum structural weight. So that's when an efficient flight dispatch organisation and an experienced aircraft commander have to work together to decide the optimum fuel load....
Nicely explained BEagle.
Talking of the CFP in the context of PhilW1981's mention of head/tail wind effects, I have noticed a trend at my company: We always make savings on estimated burn with strong headwinds and use extra with tailwinds.
Over-estimating the effects of a headwind errs on the side of caution but the reverse is true with tailwinds. Am I alone in noticing this?
Talking of the CFP in the context of PhilW1981's mention of head/tail wind effects, I have noticed a trend at my company: We always make savings on estimated burn with strong headwinds and use extra with tailwinds.
Over-estimating the effects of a headwind errs on the side of caution but the reverse is true with tailwinds. Am I alone in noticing this?
Let's say you're flying at 450KTAS, the expected wind was 50 kts and it's actually only 30 kts.
If the wind was a headwind, you'll gain 5% TAS (420 v 400), whereas if it was a tailwind, you'll lose 4% TAS (480 v 500)......
If the wind was a headwind, you'll gain 5% TAS (420 v 400), whereas if it was a tailwind, you'll lose 4% TAS (480 v 500)......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ireland
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to today's Irish Daily Mirror (page 14) Ryanair has recently reduced the amount of extra fuel its Captains can take without seeking approval. They could take 300 kg (on top of trip fuel + reserves etc) but that has been reduced to 100 kg. Seems surprising given that the IAA, in the wake of Valencia, recommended Ryanair revise its fuel policy. Hope this isn't what they mean.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ireland
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it does say new policy in place since last month. Pilots seem to have to explain if they land with more fuel than anticipated. Anonymous Captain says there is pressure on pilots to load less fuel. Mentions base league table of pilots use of fuel. He doesn't come across as a happy bunny.
Last edited by talent; 4th Oct 2012 at 14:05.
I am not sure if seeking approval is right. I think they have to explain why they needed more. Given that 100 kg just allows rounding up to a sensible figure and is effectively flight plan fuel, then they would if this is true need to explain every time they think they need more.
Actually I think this might encourage people to give a bit more thought and encourage them to take extra on the occasions (like the Madrid incident) when it is justified.
There is also a huge difference in remaining fuel depending on the type of arrival. Our system allows for longest arrival and at airports like Munich we can expect to save several hundred kilos because the full arrival is rarely flown. On the other hand some places in the middle east with procedural approaches usually require more fuel than planned.
Actually I think this might encourage people to give a bit more thought and encourage them to take extra on the occasions (like the Madrid incident) when it is justified.
There is also a huge difference in remaining fuel depending on the type of arrival. Our system allows for longest arrival and at airports like Munich we can expect to save several hundred kilos because the full arrival is rarely flown. On the other hand some places in the middle east with procedural approaches usually require more fuel than planned.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Explaining' is an easy thing to do if the decision was correct. The resulting 'mental pressure' on crews is less good.
In all my commercial years of operation I never once had an increased fuel load queried - I always amended the PLOG to make the numbers add up so my 'manager' could see the logic ie increased trip fuel, increased taxi fuel, changed alternate, increased alternate fuel, extra holding fuel etc etc. All done in the secure knowledge that I had:
1) Thought about it logically
2) Not just added 1000kg for mum
2) Not just added 500kg because I 'hate the company'
I was once involved in a fuel league discussion in BA (yes, they had one) and I asked the despicable little manager conducting the discussion if I could have his mobile and home number so I could check my planned fuel with him at 0600.............guess what?
Picking up on Lederhosen, the 'landing with extra fuel' is easily dismissed if flight time is less than PLOG.
In all my commercial years of operation I never once had an increased fuel load queried - I always amended the PLOG to make the numbers add up so my 'manager' could see the logic ie increased trip fuel, increased taxi fuel, changed alternate, increased alternate fuel, extra holding fuel etc etc. All done in the secure knowledge that I had:
1) Thought about it logically
2) Not just added 1000kg for mum
2) Not just added 500kg because I 'hate the company'
I was once involved in a fuel league discussion in BA (yes, they had one) and I asked the despicable little manager conducting the discussion if I could have his mobile and home number so I could check my planned fuel with him at 0600.............guess what?
Picking up on Lederhosen, the 'landing with extra fuel' is easily dismissed if flight time is less than PLOG.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid the pressure on crews (e.g. written explanation) will not only continue, it will increase with increasing fuel prices.
Two more things to think about :
- Do you know the tolerances of the fuel qty ind system on your aircraft?
- Are you aware that with minimum fuel during a goaround your engine(s) may quit if flying with standard G/A attitude?
Two more things to think about :
- Do you know the tolerances of the fuel qty ind system on your aircraft?
- Are you aware that with minimum fuel during a goaround your engine(s) may quit if flying with standard G/A attitude?
Last edited by hetfield; 4th Oct 2012 at 14:28.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Do you know the tolerances of the fuel qty ind system on your aircraft?
- Are you aware that with minimum fuel during a goaround your engine(s) may quit if flying with standard G/A attitude?
- Are you aware that with minimum fuel during a goaround your engine(s) may quit if flying with standard G/A attitude?
The issue is not how much extra fuel you had when landing, but how much extra fuel you elected to take above flight plan. I have on occasion (rare) saved over 700 kilos with some judicious directs. To be penalised for saving fuel would be bananas even in leprechaun land. Fuel leagues tell a limited story as anyone who has experienced them knows. BOAC explained some of the drawbacks very well some time ago (flights during peak times, weather etc.).
What seems to be lacking is industry wide guidance what to do on the occasions when weather or other factors justify it. Some big airports which specify you must have 30 minutes extra are the exception. Say a requirement from the authorities to have a minimum extra with certain weather (CB/fog etc.) would be a good start and would create a more level playing field/hopefully increase safety.
What seems to be lacking is industry wide guidance what to do on the occasions when weather or other factors justify it. Some big airports which specify you must have 30 minutes extra are the exception. Say a requirement from the authorities to have a minimum extra with certain weather (CB/fog etc.) would be a good start and would create a more level playing field/hopefully increase safety.