Fog and indeed TS can occur unexpectedly. You deal with it just like you've said. The point is setting off to an area of known Fog or TS (in my opinion similar as they stand a good chance of improving within 30min) on min fuel is fool hardy. Especially like in this case to a busy Hub. Fuel gives you time to gather information and make the safest and most commercially viable decision. It also gives you flexibility to change your decisions before you end up going deeper into your tunnel vision. Any pilot who has experienced options blinking out around them due to changing circumstances knows the value of this. Putting yourself knowingly into a stress inducing scenario before even getting airborne is something that should be left to fighter jocks.
As a big company, making several hundred thousand flights a year, it will be hard to always arrive at alternate and land with >30 min of fuel left, if the whole company only tanks minimum. Situations in aviation are too divers to judge from your own experience to the overall system level.
Example: if all the operators into FRA fuel minimum, and all have the same closest alternate filed, imagine what happens at this low capacity alternate when the whole wave has to divert on minimum?
And still all the European flights are planned with the minimum amount and judging by the (lack of) ASR's, very few flights land with less than 30 minutes. And with very few, I mean not a handful on 100.000+ flights a year. But to be honest, and I forgot this point, we do, if the price is right, tank the amount neede fot the way back (if flying to a "expensive" airport. But that would leave us with minimum again for the way back.
And I do fly to FRA regularly, and in 90% of the time with minimum fuel, taxiiing in with altn+30 minutes left. And again, I don't see a problem in that, providing you keep up te date with the circumstances around you. Half an hour before landing we check the weather. Is it iffy? Check more than one airport around you. Depending on the distance the planned alternate does not have to be the best option on that day. Make a calculation for each suitable airport, and there are always more then one in my part of the world, when you want to divert to that airport to arrive with at least 30 minutes of fuel. Do you hear a lot opf diversions to that airport? Plan for a earlier leave of the holding...
Would I know only one other airport would be suitable and therefore very busy, then offcourse I would take more, but going from my homebase to FRA gives me a suitable alternate every 25 miles, giving me an option every 25/GS minutes.
Would FRA completely close during my approach after having flown not a shortcut or such, having burned exactly the flightplan fuel plus the cont fuel of at least 5 minutes and my altnernate would also have unforseen delays, then I agree I am getting close to the limit, but to be honest, that's such a small chance it is not weighing up to taking 200KGs or more on every single flight. And flying in this busy space for 10 yeasr hasn't given me one moment where I was out op options and had to land with less then 30 minutes. Might have been lucky and past results are never assurances for the future, but taking more/too much fuel does not make for a safer flight (but it does make it easier).
Quote:
the stranger.
Fog and indeed TS can occur unexpectedly. You deal with it just like you've said. The point is setting off to an area of known Fog or TS (in my opinion similar as they stand a good chance of improving within 30min) on min fuel is fool hardy. Especially like in this case to a busy Hub. Fuel gives you time to gather information and make the safest and most commercially viable decision. It also gives you flexibility to change your decisions before you end up going deeper into your tunnel vision. Any pilot who has experienced options blinking out around them due to changing circumstances knows the value of this. Putting yourself knowingly into a stress inducing scenario before even getting airborne is something that should be left to fighter jocks.
I don't know what other people do, but when knowing the destination is not great weatherwise, I start making plans early during the flight, of not before the flight. That does not create stress, it is part of my normal job. I do not wait until I pratically see the airport
Our flights range typically from an hour to an hour and a half. With ACARS, I can be updated on weather from the moment I get airborne for all airports within reach. With VHF and ACARS I can talk to handling on destination to get an idea if there are a lot of diversions, holdings etc. Within 10 minutes after the after t/o checklist I can have an altered plan, selected my actual alternate (which might be different than on the flightplan, reducing the required fuel) and have a good idea of the traffic there (ATC does help you know in giving info on how many have diverted to that field). Still got at least 30 minutes left before we start an approach. Time enough to adjust the plan if needed. And this way of planning would be the same if I had minimum fuel or 1 hour extra. I always know when to divert to land with 30 minutes left and that moment is almost always (far) earlier the moment where I am left with altn+final reserve.
I am talking about a situation where only the destination is difficult, weather or traffic wise, giving me options all around me and the destination. Things chance, as would the amount of fuel in my tanks, if the trouble is allready at more than one location.
But the way I have been working, as have most of my colleagues has not given one low fuel emergency for the last 4 years, nor do we divert a lot. But we do save a lot of fuel and save more every year by looking professionally at our required fuel instead of just taking extra.
Last edited by the_stranger; 15th Aug 2012 at 13:25.
I am constantly amazed by those that are comfortable arriving anywhere with 30min till double flameout . . . . because that in plain language is what we are talking about.
How often in a Simulator has some emergency been given where time has seemingly gone onto fast-forward & whoops, coffee-break time/ end of session as 30 min has just vanished.
Missed approaches with 900-1100kg in the tanks are just a little out of my comfort zone. I seem to remember a few years ago in a Ryanair manual a paragraph stating that no flight would be planned to arrive at destination OR alternate with less than 2000kg remaining, but I guess they removed that particular advice, or no way could you hold till 2000kg & then subsequently plan to arr at alt with a ton or so. Legal as it may be,personally I get a little uncomfortable being airborne with much less than a ton a side, & have some justifiable doubts over the actual burn that is forecast to alternates, particularly if you are not the only one & will not be declaring an emergncy to have priority. Certainly most diversions I have undertaken have mysteriously used a chunk more than the meagre amount forecast.
Those that routinely take minimum fuel (or anything close to it) on a dodgy day are (IMHO) being somewhat optimistic/unimaginative.
If you imagine a scenario where on a busy night you quite possibly given less than optimum inbound route/early descent, & your subsequent diversion is more than likely accompanied by several others in the same boat, are you going to truly feel comfortable hoofing off to somewhere else that has been calculated at the minimum possible burn, to arr with 30 min holding till silence in a best case scenario ? ? If you are, congrats on your supreme self confidence, & on the confidence you display in both lady luck & the bods/computer responsible for your flight planning programme.
I am not "blessed"(?) with either of these attributes so use the old fashioned method that has kept me out of trouble this last 23 years - EXTRA FUEL.
An awareness of ones own vulnerability used to be seen as an attribute in aviation, the Beanies have not yet brainwashed it out of my generation, although I do occasionaly see contemporaries who delight in calculating all the variables possible to depart with less than block fuel on the log when there is patently no need & a few centimes of benefit. I can only assume they have been lucky enough in their career to have never been exposed to a situation where the value of it is self.evident. . . . or they have had their imagination disconnected.
Whilst I agree in the most basic sense with the stranger that it is not per se dangerous to depart with minimum fuel into forecast poor weather, the extra stress/time constraints you place on yourself /other aircraft/ ATC may lead to circumstances where it will rapidly become so.
For further evidence of this read the report of the Brittania Airways B757 landing accident @ Girona & tell me it would have ended the same way if they had taken an extra 30-45 min in the tanks, me, I somehow doubt it.
I seems to me that several here have forgotten how div fuel is calculated. Yes, going around at minima to divert is uncomfortable. A 'normal' diversion is not. However, you need to ask yourself WHY you commenced that approach in the first place.
Read how the-stranger handles it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cps
Missed approaches with 900-1100kg in the tanks are just a little out of my comfort zone.
- mine too. How on earth do you find yourself anywhere near that? Are you flying a Citation? That is typically final reserve for a 737NG - and you STILL have 30 minutes. See above?
The RYR guys did not divert from minima. Yet they found themselves with 30 minutes at touchdown because you simply don't fly a straight line from diversion point to threshold. Again, no go around allowed at alternate. Plus, you don't always have the chance to divert from a point 200 miles ahead of your destination. Many times it will occur after a 20 minutes holding and once everybody has already started rushing to the alternate.
Anyway, we can discuss all that for weeks, the bottom line is captains and first officers should never feel pressure to bring less than what they feel comfortable with. For some it will be 100 kilos, for other it may be 700. We're not all made equal in the face of stress and pressure. The 700 guy may not be the black sheep. He's only different and is aware of his own lower limits.
Now, past 1000 kilos as a standard magic number is way out normality to me !
You will never change the mind of an individual by arguing fuel policy on a forum.
You just have to watch a sim detail go to hell when a fuel situation starts developing, even really good operators can quickly start running out of capacity. The Britannia at Gro is a good example imo Captplaystation.
Many moons ago my mate was a Fo tasked with ferrying a 767 into Gatwick with a Management Captain who proceeded to reduce the amount of fuel my pal suggested (sensible) and they set off with minimum (bare) . Not surprisingly they were asked to hold on the arrival (weather fine) and promptly diverted to Ltn !
I'm with Studi and Captplaystation and all the other 'cowards'.
The RYR guys did not divert from minima. Yet they found themselves with 30 minutes at touchdown because you simply don't fly a straight line from diversion point to threshold.
On our flightplans, diversion fuel is calculated via a SID/STAR, never a straight line. Also (most of the time) three other options are given, calculate by the same way and indicated as how much fuel we would need extra/less compared to the planned altn. A straight line is not required to keep me within my diversion fuel.
Quote:
Again, no go around allowed at alternate.
And if I would expect one, I would plan for it. Ofcourse you never know, but how many unlikely variables do you take into account? Even if you take 2 hours extra, there are always some scenarios to be imagined where you run out. For me, the chance for doing an approach while running close to diversion fuel plus 30 minutes, going around, using more then the planned div. fuel and going around at the altn are so small I more or less disregard it. unless you can expect a go-around/linger routing. But then you plan for it. And in the end, those 30 minutes are meant for extreme unlikely things..
Quote:
Plus, you don't always have the chance to divert from a point 200 miles ahead of your destination. Many times it will occur after a 20 minutes holding and once everybody has already started rushing to the alternate.
Since when do others decide for you when to divert. If, at 400' after T/O, I want to divert, I divert. I ALWAYS have the chance to divert, be it 200 miles before destination or after a go-around. Having limited options where to divert to, that's another story, but again, you plan for that.
Quote:
Anyway, we can discuss all that for weeks, the bottom line is captains and first officers should never feel pressure to bring less than what they feel comfortable with. For some it will be 100 kilos, for other it may be 700. We're not all made equal in the face of stress and pressure. The 700 guy may not be the black sheep. He's only different and is aware of his own lower limits.
Now, past 1000 kilos as a standard magic number is way out normality to me !
You are totally right there and I am not advocating my way of working as being better. There is the law and your personal margin. That last part is totally up to you and you should feel comfortable (including the rest of the crew).
It certainly has nothing to do with guts, cowards or how far are you daring to go. It is a personal thing to decide how much you want above the calculated, and therefor legal minimum.
But saying more fuel equals more safety is mindlessly repeating eachother
Last edited by the_stranger; 15th Aug 2012 at 15:15.
Reason: language barrier ;)
It's a personal choice, but how come Ryanair has 4 aircrafts doing the same thing when others don't seem to....! I guess it might be a personal choice or whatsoever but if everybody has the same proportion of aircraft diverting in a mayday the system collapses. All the "our flightplan include SID/STAR stuff"...first it's the law which respecting seems like an absolute minimum, second it's for everybody the same. It might be safe to fly minimum but sometimes it's just ridiculously stupid...TAFs and METARs are one thing, SID/STAR etc are the theory so what happens in those situations?ATC has to take you, first through CBs and use different routings as there is probably a lot more of a workload on them due everybody encountering issues (offtrack aircrafts, more aircraft piling up in the sector, reduced capacity and use of unusual holds). It's a really busy airport, do you really expect to get your standard SID/STAR trackmiles at optimum speed, anti-ice consumption etc...? You don't know what's gonna be the WX enroute to your alternate, central spain is a huge overheated high altitude plateau, conditions for TS creation if they prevail in MAD, they probably also prevail in its mid-range vincinity due similar landscape, terrain, sun exposure etc...MAD is south west corner of Europe, depending of the inbound traffic flow, it might be more crowded in the North sectors for last european medium haul coming in. If you hold north west of the airfield or south east it's not really the same story to go to VLC. Although there are the minimum legal requirements, if you have to go through all the traffic in diagonal, you're a lot more likely to suffer extra track miles to avoid traffic etc. Who's at low altitude between south east holds at MAD and VLC: nobody. Who's at low altitude between north west holds at MAD and VLC, all the traffic. Then thinking you can still use the mayday joker card is just wrong and to me a lot of disrespect to others...you just put everybody in a more difficult situation with guys waiting for their turn in the hold being delayed due to your priority etc, increased EATs at last minute etc...it would be a disgrace. Sea fog is a difficult thing to predict, it can happen really quickly with very specific conditions needing to match in very specific circumstances...TS in an evening summer in central spain doesn't seem to me that unusual. But for all this, you need to gather experience, listen to experienced captains, and not just take the answer databases of the ATPL but understand the books etc... If we just stick to the minimum fuel and listen 100% to the company orders then we are not much more than bus drivers...it's not a default of their pilots I guess. It just questions the real freedom you have regarding your fuel uplifts and consequences. Finally, some airlines invest in controlling their operation. According to what I've read on the case, it seems two of those planes were really close to each other. The operations department could find a mean to communicate with their aircraft giving a heads up on what's going on with company aircraft. It's a mess just spreading the information might be a valuable input!
I really don't know why I am getting involved in this discussion, but I will. For those of you who have been involved in PPRuNe for some years; I will apologise in advance for I have said most of this before.
I flew DC-10s for Fred Laker. Laker, from an operating crew point of view, was a pretty efficient operator. We always, as a matter of course, carried an extra hour of fuel contingency for New York and Chicago. Those of you who know anything about carrying extra fuel will already know that you will burn 10% of the weight of the extra fuel just getting it to the destination.
So, when JFK went out in severe thunderstorms (such as MAD), it was not unknown to go round in circles at Micke intersection with lots of other fellow travellers burning fuel like there was no tomorrow and then end up diverting to Bradley or Boston.
After Laker went down the tube, I went to work for a Part 121 operator at JFK flying ex-Laker DC-10s on the N-register.
They had a minimum (plog) fuel policy which worried me a little.
So, I found myself in an ex-Laker DC-10 but now under Part 121 arriving at Micke intersection with not a lot of extra fuel but the decision was amazingly simple from a captain's point of view.
As soon as the fuel got to Bradley or Boston minimums, then off you went and there were absolutely NO GREY AREAS.
I really cannot see the problem with aircraft arriving at VLC on diversion from MAD announcing a "Mayday" on the basis of low-fuel. I would have to go into my attic to dig out the old regulations (CAA and FAA) but I have to say that any aircraft that is likely to land with less than the minimum emergency hold fuel, is absolutely required to declare a Mayday.
(In approximate terms, emergency hold fuel (15-30 minutes) is to cover the situation where you have arrived at your diversion airfield, made an approach and then had to go-around because the runway was blocked and then make a circuit to land with dry tanks.
I guess we will never separate fact from fiction here, but post #25 intrigues me. It SUGGESTS that one of the FR a/c actually made an approach at LEMD and went round, which adds a little missing flavour to the FR press release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRying
The RYR guys did not divert from minima.
- do you know this as a fact? If so, your source?
How many 'whoopsies' are you guys going to plan for? A G/A at alternate??? Holding for 50 mins at alternate? These things are just NOT part of normal fuel planning. They are what PAN and MAYDAY are for. Are you going to plan for the Boeing 'Gear Lever jammed' or Gear will not extend manually' checklist from the Classic days as well? 3800kg minimum I recall to run the checklist.
Just who said these captains did not take extra fuel? This whole thread is based on the assumption that these aircraft departed with minimum fuel but nobody can say if this is the case. Second a mayday for fuel is declared when the expected touchdown fuel remaining is less than final reserve. Given that Spanish ATC are a disgrace to the profession and getting accurate information is next to impossible, is it any wonder that maydays were declared. If you can't accurately predict when you can touchdown you have no option but to declare an emergency. I believe all Ryanair aircraft touched down with above final reserve. Third, min fuel. I have been carrying min fuel for at least the last 5 years. Never had an issue. I normally land with between 2.8 and 3.0 tonnes. I do note that if I deem extra fuel needed I tend to take a little more extra fuel than many of my collegues. For those of you that are saying taking off with min fuel is unsafe, what of the situation ( a situation I have had a least 3 times this summer) where with passenger and min fuel load I was up to my MTOW. Was this flight unsafe? Should I have tech stopped on the way so I had a little extra just in case when I reached my destination. It is complete nonsense to say that min fuel is dangerous. Fourth, The Ryanair fuel league is statistical nonsense, the letters you recieve are standard letters telling you well done or could do better. I have had many of both in my time, all end up straight in the bin never to be thought of again. I cannot see why any professional pilot would give a second thought to these letters, they are a creation of non pilot management and have no meaning in the flying world, if these guys want their delusions let them think these letters are changing the way we do business. By the way base captains been ordered by the chief pilot to issue letters to the top/bottom 20% of pilots within the company, company not base! You can see immediately how it is statistical nonsense. Fifth and last, When it comes to fuel carriage FR are more generous than many of the larger operators out there. Anyone from Easy care to comment? What do you normally arrive with?
Beernice is right we don't know if these captains uplifted extra fuel... Now, taking extra fuel to burn it in the hold might be one option according to preferred company policy...some companies really want to bring their pax to destination. But burning it to absolute minimum diversion fuel before you go is questionable. If one says that spanish ATC is a non-sense, then you know you just plan to divert a bit before you reach your bingo fuel (if you know that spanish ATC is not helpful, then take it into account, it should be reflected in your fuel management). It's an element which is part of the decision process. Except very exceptional circumstances you should not have to declare a mayday because there were TS at MAD...where is the really unusual situation in this??? Mayday is to be used when you have really bad luck. Then commenting in saying that they probably landed with more and than final reserve fuel is just ridiculous and if they were so large then why did they declare a mayday!!! And of course once you get priority you'll burn less than you would have if you'd be standing in the queue! Anyway, I think one can leave with minimum fuel and be perfectly safe if all the aspects have been taken into account. But many of them ending up using Mayday because there were TS in MAD...to me, it's just not a good inflight fuel management, having left with minimum fuel or not....! It's what you do with the fuel you have that matters.
Beernice, if (as I remember) you fly for Ryan & carry min fuel, I applaud your ability to consistently land with 2.8 - 3.0 tons.
Many of the routes I plied for Mikey had 900kg or so Div fuel (a tad optimistic) so, with final reserve 1100 (if I remember) & a longish taxi on departure, even applying my best CDA I would arrive (having taken the "discretionary" 300 extra) with around 2400-2500 more often than not.
Actually, NO edited to say, it was fairly route sensitive, & in both GRO & CRL was about 50/50 , dependent on route, between 28-3000 & 24-2500, but, that was with the 300 extra.
Given a "real" diversion fuel of around 1500kg in most cases, that equated to a possible PAN en-route to said alternate.
Anyhow, we are discussing Apples & Oranges, & Spain , in Summer, with TS forecast, & "not overly flexible" (read militant, but Hey , do the Govt even notice? ) ATC, is not the place to Dick around with min fuel. . . and I seriously doubt that these guys did. I am 2nd guessing that all the Ducks lined up, and that the Spanish media is possibly labouring a point here with some Govt sponsored political motive behind it.
Hopefully they all departed with a bit more extra than their Base Capt would have liked, if they did , if not they should really be asking themselves WHY ? ?
I would be a little bit ashamed (but not inhibited ) to be forced into declaring an Emergency due fuel, unless I had been thrown a real wide ball. Unless due to some really unforseen circumstances, I would take that as a surefire indication that my eye was not on the ball that day.
Last edited by captplaystation; 15th Aug 2012 at 20:55.
I agree, poimier. The reference to 'ICAO' was to make sure US and Canadian pilots do not expect any effective response away from home to their call as I believe some do. It is viewed as 'conversational' in ICAO.and normally met (in the UK, anyway) with "Are you declaring an emergency?"
What is the actual required ATC action in the US and Canada to such a call?
, if not 
they should really be asking themselves WHY ? ? 
