Originally Posted by 1stSp
We all know crashes in aviation happen because all the layers of the Swiss cheese cakes are aligned in such way a single hole is created.
- a long-standing fact. HOWEVER, this focus on Ryanair is primarily driven because MOL and his team are severely denting the status, T&C and well-being of airline pilots and cabin crew (at least) and not directly, I feel, because of 'safety' per se. Let's look at Benno's position:
Reserve fuel is an emergency situation only - we all agree, and that is why a MAYDAY call is predicated. So, what is Benno's (?theVNV, BALPA, IFALPA??, etc etc) position on EUOPS and para 1.295 c.1 - are they all happy that this allows 'short-haul' (NB 6 hours is a 'long' flight) operators to
expect crews
effectively to plan to arrive with an emergency fuel state in certain situations? Are Benno and his team campaining against this - I have heard nothing?
Let's put this in perspective. IF regulations allow a certain minimum fuel state, at least one operator is likely to drive crew to use it. Does that not make the regs the correct target?
My personal view is that 1.295 c 1 should be withdrawn and a/c should always have alternate fuel on board at the point of take-off. I also agree with the common view that alternate fuel is not always realistic, but surely that is down to the individual Captains to sort out? As FullWings said, it is not what you load but what you do with it.
While we are at it, how about pressing for a survey of arrival fuel states v a v alt+reserve and seeing how many a/c subsequently 'committed' to a single runway destination and why? Let's be objective instead of subjective.
Judging by the huge and sometimes juvenile flurries of activity on this and the KLM thread and the sparse serious activity on the fuel planning thread, everyone and his dog appear blinded by the RY headlights.