@ BOAC - I posted it because the bickering on this forum was losing sight of the facts and this was the most factual report I could find, notwithstanding the journalist's rhetoric.
But thanks for the IAA link, which I hadn't seen. It's useful and as a manager in an airline where at our home base we often encounter similar conditions as experienced at MAD that night, I have circulated the IAA report around the company to reinforce my view that our own fuel policy should not be questioned.
I too applaud the RYR captains for thier decisions and the way they handled the situation. However, with TEMPO PROB40 TS, I would have to question the decisions on the amount of extra fuel taken - especially considering they all appear to be MAD based crew (4th sectors for each). In our operation (HKG), I would expect most crews to decide to take at least 30 minutes extra (If the dispatchers haven't already decided to add the extra 30 minutes) when faced with this report and wouldn't be suprised if they opted for as much as an hour. Personally, I would opt for 45 minutes giving enough for half an hour holding and a missed approach. I notice that the extra taken by the three RYR crews was 892, 613 and 283kgs. The stated RYR fuel policy sounds of having to explain why more than 300kg was taken sounds like it might have influenced the lower figure - and I don't think the two crews who took more took enough. The IAA concludes this in the report - RYRs fuel policy needs to be reviewed. Managers with a agenda of cost saving should not compromise flight safety.