Media hysteria on low fuel states in 3, 2, 1...

[Two's in]

Now look what you started. If only there was some kind of mandatory regulation for fuel loads on IFR flights.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3837945&page=1

Danger in the Sky: Underfueled Planes

As oil prices soar, it may mean that some airlines may soon not be. United Airlines has announced it may have to ground 100 planes because gas has become so expensive.

An investigation by WABC-NY reporter Jim Hoffer found that some airlines might be trying to cut costs by lightening the load and flying with less fuel. But that has put some flights and passengers at risk.

In April, a pilot on a commercial plane entering New York airspace contacted air traffic control to say that his aircraft was running low on fuel.

The recorded conversation between the pilot and air traffic controllers offered a chilling glimpse into the potential dangers in commercial air travel.

Pilot: "We are minimum fuel, sir."

Air traffic controller: "You're declaring an emergency at this time. The time is now 22:57. I need the souls on board and fuel in pounds when you arrive."

Pilot: "Copy that. One hundred fifty-seven souls on board. We have exactly 38 minutes of fuel remaining."

Controllers gave the plane priority landing and it safely touched down with just minutes of fuel remaining.

[sevenstrokeroll]

one major us carrier always went min. fuel to KSFO whenever there was holding.

ATC got wise and whenever they declared "min fuel" , the answer was, EXPECT VECTORS TO RUNWAY 29 AT OAKLAND (ACROSS THE BAY FROM SFO).


The FAA won't do anything, so perhaps the airlines can be shamed into doing the right thing.

[AltFlaps]

We CANNOT win. I we carry too much fuel we're destroying the environment. If we carry just enough fuel ....blah....blah....blah

[Admiral346]

OK, here we go again:

1. to WABC-NY reporter Jim Hoffer:
Go research cookie recepies, you might be succesfull there, don't write about things, you don't know or are unwilling to research completely...

2. to Two's In: There is a mandatory regulation:
The fuel required at take off consists of the following:
trip fuel (fuel required to fly from A to B, including approach)
contingency fuel (usually 5% of trip fuel, for unforseen increase in consumption, e.g. unfavorable windchange... - other regulations may apply)
alternate fuel (fuel required to fly to an alternate airport, where weather is forecast ok)
30 min of holding fuel 1500' over alternate elevationSo there is nothing unsafe to fly with this fuel in your tanks, it might just be operationaly stupid if you know there is a lot of holding to be expected at destination, or you might not make your level and be forced to fly lower for hours and hours (likely places: China, Mongolia, Russia, Africa,...)

3. to sevenstrokeroll: Good job by the SFO controllers, they won't be fooled by some wining.

Alltogether I want to say, it is perfectly safe and legal to fly with minimum fuel. You get to your destination, the holdings are full, you divert and get to your alternate. If you have uplifted only minimum, you shouldbe at your last 30 min of fuel. JAA (I don't know about US regs) require the commander to call in an emergency at this very moment (30 mins left). Still legal, safe, running as the system is designed. The mayday will get you priority over other a/c approaching your alternate.

Of course you will be in the papers, a mayday call just sounds too scary in the ears of all the groundhogs out there...

And flying to SFO, then diverting to OAK because you only took minimum on a regular bases, will cost so much money, that the management of that airline wil surely learn that it's chepaer to put a couple tons of extra into the planes.

NIC

edit: Altflaps had posted, while I was typing:

4. to AltFlaps: I agree with you completely!!!

[Phil Space]

So it can never happen?
What about the Avianca 707 that ran out of fuel going in to JFK in 1990?

[Admiral346]

The Avianca?

Go read the CVR transcript, then post again...

Nic

P.S.: I didn't say it can never happen. But if you don't follow SOPs it might.

[latetonite]

You might have to call the tow truck though if you divert to your alternate after 30 minutes, with only your alternate fuel on board.:suspect:

[Admiral346]

You got it wrong, read again:

When flying on minimum you don't divert after 30 minutes, you divert instantly if there is any delay at destination.

reaching your alternate, you have a so called final reserve of 30 mins and going into that, you have to declare an emergency.

I sugget you all do some research in the relevant, publically available laws and regulations, then form an opinion and then post. It's like on the radio: Think, Push, Talk...

Nic

PS: I am going to Grandma's with the Kids, so I will resume posting tomorrow night.

[Shiny side down]

Latenite, That being irrelevant for the discussion on fuel required.

Remember, there are some seriously stupid people about to get on the band wagon based on the initial report.
For their benefit, this needs to be kept very very simple.

1. There are regulations about the minimum fuel you need to carry. SAFETY
2. There are regulations for what you do when you get to destination. SAFETY
3. An aircraft only has tanks of a certain size. DESIGN
4. Carrying excessive amounts of fuel simply leads to burning more fuel for the privelege. WASTAGE.
5. There are regulations about what you do if you think you may begin burning your reserves. SAFETY.

Mr Travelling public, and Mr ignorant Journo. An analogy. You drive from A-B. If you need half of one tank of fuel, and you fill up the fuel tank completely, your fuel consumption increases. Why? Because the car is heavier. When you get to destination, you will have a lot of fuel left. You carried this fuel unnecessarily. Over the year, this will amount to several pounds/dollars/euros spent for no reason at all.

Believe me. The pilots and regulators know more about this than you do!

[120.4]

What happened to the other thread?
I was about to post...
The 06.00 to 07.00 hour is then needlessly busy with lost of crossing tracks on base/final approach with knackered pilots and atcos working their socks off as ATC try to get back to no delays for the start of the 07.00 to 08.00 hour. Totally stupid imo.
I whole-heartedly agree. There is evidence that wake vortex is being persistently breached as traffic crosses "over" to go on the other side. As you well know, minimum spacing is 3nm on the parallels but Heavy-Heavy vortex is 4nm. One cannot achieve 3nm spacing and provide the correct vortex separation if continually crossing over on the correct glide path; each flight is required to pass 500' above what the preceding was at that point and so in no time you end up too high to make an approach.
The crossover on final approach should be stopped for exactly the same reasons that the DAP will not support its introduction at a 2 runway Stansted nor will they sanction a Terminal Departures (crossover on departure) Mixed-mode operation.
Once Terminal 5 is open and BA move their entire operation between the strips there will be no need for it anyway.
.4

[Two's in]

Admiral, if I have to explain that I was using irony, then it was clearly ineffective. I shall be more selective in future!

[BOAC]

What happened to the other thread?:confused:

I ASSUME you mean BA088 Mayday (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=299418) ?

[Slimbitz]

I recently operated JNB-LHR, incurring unexplained extra burn en-route, which made our arrival fuel only a little over our company minimum reserve. Sometimes these things even themselves out over time, but nothing had changed by 1.30 to ETA. Warned company and asked them to pre-warn ATC that we would only have once round BIG before needing to make approach. Unfortunately, message not received by relevant controller, so first they knew of our fuel state was as we arrived at BIG. Didn't get vectored off straightaway, second time over BIG declared PAN as considered potential for landing below final reserve. Expeditious approach and landing. Phoned ATC afterwards, agreed only lesson to be learned was to ensure on first contact with UK ATC that they are fully aware of situation. Job done, these things happen, that's why there are procedures.
:cool:

[Loose rivets]

Underlying all the arguments, I think we all know that should an aircraft have to divert unreasonably quickly, all the savings for a year will be negated.

Should there ever be an accident, the cost rises exponentially to some point that a lot of operators can't recover from.

What is going wrong is the loss of the captain's decision-making authority.

[Rainboe]

Underlying all the arguments, I think we all know that should an aircraft have to divert unreasonably quickly, all the savings for a year will be negated.
Objection! Unsubstantiated claim!
Very often, all that extra fuel just delays what would inevitably have happened anyway (for example fog holding). A sharp operator should be able to get a standby crew on scene fairly quickly if the crew cannot 'fuel and go'. Better to do this sometimes than fllog around if there are runway problems. Fuel Diversions caused by low fuel that would not have occured had extra been carried are probably far less than one a year per service. The cost of carrying more fuel over a full year will exceed the cost of a diversion. Remember the Captain can still elect to carry extra on days when he sees fit and feels the extra cost is justified.

[carholme]

Ladies/Gentlemen;

I don't understand the cost savings on fuel load. If you have a fleet of 50 a/c and they are full fueled at the beginning of the year and each of them fly 4000 hrs p/a, at the end of the year, you are going to have a fleet of 50 a/c sitting on the ramp with full fuel. And any other equation under that is still going to produce the same direct costs. In fact constant planning with min fuel may increase costs substantially with unplanned diversions, etc.

Regards

carholme

[acbus1]

I don't understand the cost savings on fuel load.
Less fuel = less weight = less lift = less drag = less thrust = less fuel consumption = less cost.

However, less fuel = more chance of running out = more chance of crashing = passengers travel with safer airlines = much more cost (well, less profit, anyway)

Anyway, before I got sidetracked, I really came here to say.......

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."

Douglas Bader

[nugpot]

Except for the direct cost of lifting excess fuel to altitude and then carrying it for thousands of miles to destination, there is the indirect cost of (under certain circumstances) offloading revenue pax or freight to enable the necessary uplift.

Minimum fuel makes economic sense to the bean counters.. Captains need to provide the common sense in the equation.

[BOAC]

carholme - airlines are run by beancounters, aircraft by pilots. In all the airlines with which I have been associated the bc's decide that the occasional diversion is cheaper than lots of extra fuel on every trip. It is then my decision, as pilot, whether I go on their plan or mine. In my time I flew with Captains on 737s who always took 'a tonne extra for comfort' - a ridiculous plan! Sometimes you might need 2 tonnes extra.

The danger is, as said above, when bc pressure, relayed downwards by eager and upcoming management, pushes the Captains to take less than they should.

[SeniorDispatcher]

I just about spewed my morning beverage when this BS aired the other morning. Typical bovine fecal material for a "sweeps" ratings period like November is over here...

Notice how that they manage to reverse-engineer and assume a minimum fuel arrival automatically meant an "under-fueled" aircraft at departure?

Notice the years they used for the comparions? 2005: No AFP programs in existance. 2006: (skipped, but AFPs start). 2007: AFPs still there, but this year, more use of them due more weather this 2007 season. Is it any wonder why the huge gap between the numbers? (Airspace flow programs and the weather that drives them have been the reason for the big ATC delay mess here this past spring and summer).

This report is a classic example of why people should take anything they hear on the news with a grain of salt--a grain about the size of a Volkswagen.

I notice also that they didn't use the word "dispatcher" once. I guess all that fuel gets on the aircraft all by itself, or that the PIC just says "fill'er up" and goes...

[carholme]

BOAC

Thank you sir, I am somewhat familiar and the question still stands, no matter the cost of uplift etc. I am not talking about full fuel necessarily on every flight but fuel, as you sid, should happen, at commanders discretion. If the bcs are running the show, what about this wonderful new world of SMS thinking, where the commanders input should reflect his sound decision for safety reasons.
Safety is dollars whether you implement it or you don't. We are all afraid to discuss dollars and safety but it is a harsh fact. If commanders continuously give in to the bcs on fuel load, the stress factors with that crew are nudging the holes in the cheese closer to alignment.

I would like to think that the commanders make their decisions based on what fuel they want but this discussion only shows the pressure they are under to carry less.

Again, so much for SMS.


carholme

[Loose rivets]

Rainboe says

Objection! Unsubstantiated claim!


Well, okay, probably too much of a generalization across companies, and I'm not talking about being a flying tanker, but I know what it used to cost us to divert. It was all the ongoing costs that added up..the logistics as they say today. It just wiped any savings I could make.

[BOAC]

Carholme - I hope I did not give the impression that many of us take any notice of the bcs?:) Just one of the 'pressures' we are under.

I'm not familiar with 'SMS' other than mobile text messages. Is it 'Safety Management System'?

[DozyWannabe]

Phil Space:
What about the Avianca 707 that ran out of fuel going in to JFK in 1990?
If it's not obvious from reading the CVR transcript, the fact is that at no point did they declare a fuel emergency, instead requesting 'priority'. It was a combination of poor standard phraseology and rotten luck.

[moggiee]

If it's not obvious from reading the CVR transcript, the fact is that at no point did they declare a fuel emergency, instead requesting 'priority'. It was a combination of poor standard phraseology and rotten luck.
No - poor phraseology and poor airmanship!

[alf5071h]

It is interesting to consider the views in this thread and others which relate to media / public perception of our industry, with a management report comparing several high risk industries. Of note for aviation, there is the lack of “a framework for incorporating societal values/concerns into safety related decisions” and the lack of “positive management of the media and transparency of safety related decision making”. These are the conclusions in comparrison with the Underground Railway, Food, Oil & Gas, and Nuclear industries.
Perhaps many of the ‘media’ problems are of our own making, particularly as aviation is a very safe industry and at times taken for granted. Are we complacent? Is there more that aviation could / should be doing to improve the media / public perception of safety.

As for complacency; we supposedly have SMS, CRM, HF etc, but in comparison with the industry-based oil & gas initiative “Step Change for
Safety”, are we really as safety orientated, or standardized as we think are?

Ref:Decision-making practices and lessons from other industries. ( http://rssb.co.uk/research/allsearch.asp) Follow link at T266
SMS, HF Refs:- Step Change for Safety. (www.stepchangeinsafety.net/stepchange/AboutUs.aspx)
and Energy Institute, HF. (www.energyinst.org.uk/index.cfm?PageID=703)

[carholme]

BOAC;

Yes, SMS is Safety Management Systems and though it is indeed a valuable business tool, it is not the saviour, our regulatory agencies would have us believe, especially those trying to manadate it. There are enough reports from crews who actually do suffer the bc pressure. We are all human and though our intellect should remove us from that pressure, we all have to put food on the table.

Regulatory agencies and companies who adopt SMS quite often are those that do not yet incorporate either SMS or Human Factors thinking into their business model. They incorporate the systems but do not employ the process and there are many of them.

carholme

[Old King Coal]

Perhaps somewhat as thread creep to the topic in question...
They incorporate the systems but do not employ the process and there are many of them.That's very true. And I kid you not when I say that some modern day Directors, when asked what is the most important thing they can think of in respect as to how they run their business, respond with the answer "Profit!" :ugh:

Perhaps the following phrase should be on a poster on the wall of every boardroom:

"If you think safety's expensive?... Try having an accident !"

[Caudillo]

And I kid you not when I say that some modern day Directors, when asked what is the most important thing they can think of in respect as to how they run their business, respond with the answer "Profit!"


And ........?

[Wiley]

"If you think safety's expensive?... Try having an accident !"Sadly, the bean counters in recent years have come to a very different conclusion, where they have calculated that they can afford a hull loss every 'n' number of years and that this is a cheaper option than paying the money for the level of crew training, maintenance and fuel uplift etc. that used to be considered an absolute necessity a few short years ago.

They've discovered that the public's memory is incredibly short, and that once an airline has passed a critical size and has achieved a certain level of brand recognition, the public will soon forget if that airline suffers a hull loss.

Don't believe me? I won't name the airline here for obvious reasons - (I don't want to see Danny or me get a letter from a lawyer) - but I'm sure (or at least I hope!!!) that the professionals reading this will remember the well known SE Asian airline that lost a 747 when the crew attempted to take off on a closed runway at Taipei a few years ago.

Ask three of your non-aviation friends if they would
(a) consider that airline one of the safer airlines to fly with,
(b) would fly with that airline, and
(c) if they recall that particular accident, where passengers were killed.

You may be surprised at the answers you will get.

[FullWings]

There is a lot of talk about "safety" vs. "fuel carriage" but I don't think they are that much related. If you are planning a flight under JAR and Company SOPs then there will be a certain minimum (legal) amount of fuel that is deemed "safe" to operate that sector. Most of the effect of loading more fuel is simply to delay the decision to go somewhere else.

As I pointed out on the other thread on this subject, it's more about what your plans A,B,C...Z are for when you do get uncomfortable about your fuel state, with how much you loaded at the beginning being irrelevant.

Looking back at some of the (rare) instances where commercial transports have run dry in the air, there appear to have been safe landing options available to the crew almost up to the last minute but for whatever reason (distraction, press-on-itis, CRM problems) they weren't taken up.

It might be argued, in poor weather, that more fuel to enable a selection of alternates increases the level of safety but if your destination and primary alternate have gone bad with minimum fuel, there's the option to land short somewhere else and wait it out.

I'm not saying that there is no safety advantage in carrying more fuel, just that it is a much more commercially based decision than the lay observer might think.

[gatbusdriver]

More un-informed tosh on this site.

Regulatory fuel planning requirements are stated at the start of this thread. This is generally plenty of fuel to carry.

There are procedures in place if you are getting low on fuel.

If you think you will land with less than final reserve.......PAN
If you know you will land with less than final reserve.......MAYDAY

For those that suggest captains no longer have the authority to take the fuel they want.....RUBBISH (certainly in my company).

I take what I want! I also don't have to justify this on the plog!

Fortunately I am a PROFESSIONAL pilot, and as such I have a responsibility to carry the correct amount of fuel. Therefore I don't carry extra fuel for the sake of it. I carry min fuel plus whatever I consider necessary (if any) based on en-route Wx, Wx at dest, time of arrival, A/C I'm on (as some a/c burn more fuel than others).

Carrying MIN fuel does not decrease safety, but it might just increase your chances of diverting if you haven't taken all factors into consideration.

By the way, it is also our responsibility to fly at the right levels (taking jet streams into account), at economic cruising speeds, and get short cuts to reduce track mileage (where practicable)

[carholme]

gatbusdriver;

Carrying MIN fuel does not decrease safety, but it might just increase your chances of diverting if you haven't taken all factors into consideration.

Sir;

I am sure nobody would disagree with the fact that MIN fuel does not decrease safety, the alternative being that it does not increase safety.
But how does that INCREASE your chances of diverting, no matter what the factors are?

Carholme

[BOAC]

...of course we really need to establish what 'gbd' means by 'MIN FUEL' - is it

1) the minimum required for a safe and sensible operation on that flight or

2) is it the company generated PLOG figure?

I propose if 1) it does not increase, if 2) it does. Reason for 2)? With any adverse event, eg wind/levels/holding/routing you are firstly into contingency fuel and then into 'do I commit or divert'. 1) gives you that buffer (eg 'no delay' into LHR - and those 20 minutes holding kgs are in the tanks)

[Right Way Up]

Fortunately I am a PROFFESSIONAL pilot, and as such I have a responsibility to carry the correct amount of fuel. Therefore I don't carry extra fuel for the sake of it. I carry min fuel plus whatever I consider necessary (if any) based on en-route Wx, Wx at dest, time of arrival, A/C I'm on (as some a/c burn more fuel than others).

AMEN! :D

Only time I have diverted in 4 years command, was on a forecast cavok day which I added 30 mins due to it being a summer weekend day with visual approaches at LGW. Weather ended up as BKN 900 ft with SRAs. After EAT had gone back for the fifth time to a 40 min total delay I decided that landing was not assured and diverted to land at BOH with a few 100 kgs above FRF. If I had taken flight plan fuel I would have still diverted to BOH but would have saved 30 mins holding fuel and 30 mins less delay. The safety level in both cases would be identical. It is not about how much extra fuel you take, it is all about the command decision making when fuel tends towards minimum reserves!

[acbus1]

Carrying MIN fuel does not decrease safety
Really?

I must have an over-active imagination, then.

[J.O.]

A commander's comfort level with carrying the dispatcher's planned fuel amount can be greatly affected by his comfort level with the flight dispatch system in place in the airline. If the system ensures that the flight plans calculate fuel for each aircraft based on its actual fuel burn; if it ensures that relevant factors such as expected delays are considered during the planning stage; and if it ensures that the choice of alternate airport(s) is sensible for both operational and commercial considerations; then it is much easier to take flight plan fuel. If the commander feels that some of these have not been properly accounted for, they should take the time to review their concerns with the dispatcher so that they understand the reason(s) for taking extra fuel. Then, it's up to the crew to monitor flight progress consistently and seriously so that they are aware of their fuel status and the weather enroute and at destination at all times.

The only other thing I would add is this...

How many major accidents have occurred on the third approach to an airport with crap weather, particularly in cultures where not getting there is considered a sign of personal weakness? One has to wonder if those folks would still be alive had they only taken enough fuel for one approach at the destination and then been forced to divert to a proper alternate. But then again, that assumes that they would not allow their cultural biases to cloud their command decisions.

[gatbusdriver]

cahholme;
I am sure nobody would disagree with the fact that MIN fuel does not decrease safety, the alternative being that it does not increase safety.
But how does that INCREASE your chances of diverting, no matter what the factors are?

For example:

Night Corfu in Oct, TS are very common. 40/50 mins holding out at the KRK is very common on these nights during the rush hour. If you carry PLOG (MIN) fuel, you might as well go straight to Athens.

That was all I meant. If you carry PLOG fuel when other factors suggest it is sensible to carry more, you increase your chances of diverting. Would safety be decreased in this instance....I don't think so.

[Two's in]

I suspect that the min fuel regulations were drafted before getting in and out of most major airports became remarkably similar to joining the M25 on a good day. Add a bit of Wx to the mix, and a fuel emergency is guaranteed to cause massive disruption at most ATC facilities, due to the volume of traffic alone. A study on the correlation between fuel emergencies and arrival rates at airports might be more meaningful than castigating the carriers for loading the legal fuel load.

[West Coast]

"I notice also that they didn't use the word "dispatcher" once. I guess all that fuel gets on the aircraft all by itself"

Did the dispatcher pump the fuel as well? I have a suspicion as to why no one ever mentions dispatchers, but I don't think you'll like it.

[Admiral346]

Two's In, sorry for not getting your irony.

Now about the post above:

The legal requirements I have posted do not pose a maximum level of fuel, it is the legal minimum you have to carry. That is the commanders descicion. If I fly into JFK on minimum fuel, I am simply stupid. There is a forseeable delay to be expected at many airports in the world, and that's when experience and gutfeeling come into play. I am supposed to complete my flight 1. as safe and then 2. as economical as possible. In exactly that order. That's what they pay me for.
If it was simply sticking to some formula, actually the dispatcher could decide on the fuel load, or some computer.

Fortunatley I work for a company, where noone will ask justification on why I carry extra fuel. It is up to me to decide.

Nic

[SeniorDispatcher]

>>>I have a suspicion as to why no one ever mentions dispatchers, but I don't think you'll like it.

That's a given in my profession, but also a given since we see so few PICs grace our office for visits (unlike our required jumpseat rides each year, and folks, we're talking about the west side of the Pond here, FAA Part 121 ops).
JMHO, but NWS TAF accuracy has suffered here in recent years, and it's not only dispatchers who sometimes can miss the clues.

I had a call from the PIC of a PHX-MCI flight once, asking (in not an all that nice tone) why I as carrying OKC as alternate and 50 minutes of contingency. (How wasteful!) The rest of the conversation when something like this...

Why are your carrying all this fuel?

There are thunderstorms that are..

(Interrupting me) there are no thunderstorms forecast for MCI...

Well I know nothing's forecasted but there's a line up to the northwest that...

(Interrupting me again) and the convective sigmets have that line NW moving from 27030 so it'll be north of MCI...

Well, the convective sigmet may say 27030 but looping the radar indicates more like 33030 on the movement, straight for MCI.

Well, let's use TUL instead of OKC since it'll be closer and less fuel to get there...

I'm using OKC because the orientation of the line is such that if the line grows to the SW (as they commonly do here), TUL has an excellent chance at being impacted at the same time as MCI, and OKC would be further west and behind all that. (OMA WX sucked, in case anyone was wondering, and STL was on the other side of the probable line that would be forming.)

He then wanted to talk to a Chief Pilot about my reducing the fuel, and while I said that I'd be happy to 3-way the CP in, I was telling him up front that I wasn't going to be coming off the OKC and :50. He went with it, and wasn't "happy" about it.

Enroute and abeam AMA, the NWS snaps to the 33030 movement of the line and thoughtfully amends MCI's TAF for TEMPO 1/4SM TSRA (GR too!). I pass the info along, and suggest that he pull it back to LRC since other aircraft were just starting to hold at ICT. He ended up only holding at ICT for :20 (TUL got clobbered too, as expected) and he had a clear shot from ICT to OKC the entire while.

I'm by no means saying that it happens one way as often as it does the other, but the point is that it can, and that it takes communication between PIC and dispatcher to come up with an optimum plan. One party, be it PIC or dispatcher, assuming that they have all the info to the exclusion of all other players, can be in for a nasty surprise, and one that would have very likely been avoidable.

Again, that's all west-Pond dispatcher/PIC stuff under Part 121--your country's regs may well vary...

[Fredairstair]

Is this really the best we can do on a min fuel discussion?:uhoh:

[J.O.]

If I fly into JFK on minimum fuel, I am simply stupid. There is a forseeable delay to be expected at many airports in the world, and that's when experience and gutfeeling come into play. I am supposed to complete my flight 1. as safe and then 2. as economical as possible. In exactly that order. That's what they pay me for.

Any carrier that has operated into JFK more than twice knows that. If your flight dispatch system doesn't take those delays into account and add an appropriate amount of fuel to the flight plan to cover it, then I'd argue that you have a very bad flight dispatch system. It may even be illegal, depending on whose regs you follow.

[mabrodb]

Here is a mind bender, I can actually think of a few occasions where carrying more fuel than the min. rqrd may decrease safety, and put a flight closer to the stopping margins on a shortish rwy, e.g. rwys less than 2000m.

[Admiral346]

Mabrodb

If I have to operate to a short runway, but I find it necessary to carry extra fuel for whatever reason (wx, traffic,...) and i will be limited by my max allowable landing wieght on that airport, then I don't leave the fuel behind, I leave payload behind. Cargo, Bags, maybe even Pax will have to stand down. I decide how much fuel is necessary. I am responsible for the flight. And most of all, it's my @ss in that plane, not the Ops guys' or the dispatchers or the managers'.

Nic

edit: Ok, that sounds like I don't care about all the others. Of course I take all the advice into account, when coming to my descicion on how much extra to carry. Maybe my FO has flown into that airport many times and has experienced major delays. Or dispatch knows something about wx.
When the weather is acceptable I regularily sign the flightplan blank and give it to my FO to make his own decision, when it's his leg to fly.

[RAT 5]

I once flew for a European charter airline on the Atlantic routes to the Caribbean. They had a minimum fuel policy. If you carried any extra it had to be accounted for. Their thinking was that on such a long flight there was 2500kgs contingency = 35mins. More than enough for things to go wrong at destination. Cras! They also thought that the flight planning system had the winds accurate to the nth degree. No so important on the east bound leg with tail winds and lots or airports to drop into from the French coast or UK, but on the west bound leg with headwinds, definitely not the same circumstances. With jets streams of 150kts, they only need to be 100nm nearer, or 20 dregrees more aligned to a head wind and your 35mins disappeared in a trice; plus 2000' lower than optimum. The contingency was for off level or extra winds, but not both. The destinations were often N.P.A's. The forecast models were made 20hours before our arrival, metars sometimes not available on departure. If going to Cuba, and on the northerly routing, then dropping into the USA for fuel was a no no. If on the southerly routing there were not too many en-routes to top up in should it go wrong. Leaving fuel behind in Europe when I needed it over the Atlantic and in the Caribbean seemed daft. There were a few 'heros' who had stories to tell. Coming home to a CAT 3 Rwy in the middle of Europe is fine with minimum. There is that 2500kgs after all, and the winds are generally tail winds. A drop off of 20kts is not so critical.
This was also an airline that tried to use a different cost index for every sector depending on fuel price at both ends. Shame that the flight plan was for constant Mach.

The first time I took extra fuel and wrote the reason as "ME", they didn't get the joke. What is this Mike Echo standing for?

[acbus1]

.....occasions where carrying more fuel than the min. rqrd may decrease safety.....
When you're on fire.

[Flyit Pointit Sortit]

I think that the reason that dispatchers are not mentioned is that in Europe, (well my large LOCO anyway). The Dispatcher has no input or decision with regard to Fuel at all.
The computerised flight plans are generated by Jeppespon and then the commander uses this information to decide on the fuel required.

The only thing that dispatchers are involved with is being told what fuel we want and making sure that that Fuel Figure is on the loadsheet.

Cheers!

[sleeper]

Not only loco's. Our dispatchers make the flightplan, including fuel, using all operational aspects. However that almost always results in the closest alternate and the lowest legal cont. fuel.
It is then up to us to either accept or change the blockfuel.
Although the reason for extra fuel is requiered, it is never questioned or, heaven forbid, denied.

[JW411]

I am now retired from long haul flying but one of the things that we used to do was to adjust our computer flight plans NEVER to accept an alternate that was closer than 150 nms from the destination.

The main thinking was that this ensured not having an alternate that could just possibly have the same unexpected geographic weather deterioration as the destination might get.

It also ensured that we never had a situation such as happened to the PanAm 747 that diverted from JFK to EWR one night. One engine ran out of fuel on the landing run and only two were running when they got to the gate.

The big problem was the fact that their flight plan gave EWR as an alternate based on the straight line distance of about 27 nms.

Anyone who thinks they can get out of the JFK pattern and then into the EWR pattern in 27 track miles is living on another planet.

I know that JAA requirements allow you modern-day guys to "commit" to an airfield with two runways and with a reasonable TAF but I cannot imagine what it must be like to make an approach knowing that you cannot make a go-around.

I only retired 18 months ago but I never ever landed an aeroplane in UK with less than fuel for BHX or MAN if I didn't get in.

I rather fear that that things are getting a bit tight nowadays.

I don't mind flying to plog fuel. That's pretty much what we did when I was flying on Part 121 (reclear flight plans) on the DC-10. It made the decision making process quite easy. If we bowled up to Mickey intersection on Long Island and were greeted with the news that JFK had at least 45 minute delays then we went straight to Bradley and refuelled.

A couple of diversions per year was much cheaper than burning two hours of fuel going round and round the hold and STILL diverting.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Fuel...oh those bean counters...its ok to "tanker" fuel to an airport where the fuel is expensive, but not to where the fuel is cheap.

Bottom line...if you want more fuel request it and don't leave home without it.

The one GOOD thing about the media coverage is that the bean counters will now have to factor in Public Relations as part of doing business.

The tv spot, transcript somewhere prior to this, has the question asked: state fuel in pounds...of course the pilot came back with 38 minutes.

Duhyup.

Before things went to hell in a handbasket, my airline used the concept...hit the outer marker with an hour to get somewhere and 45 minutes on top of that...worked good in the golden triangle. If things were really bad...take more... a diversion to an airport that would likely get 20 diversions does cost more in time and money than a bit more petrol.

[Wiley]

The first time I took extra fuel and wrote the reason as "ME", they didn't get the joke. What is this Mike Echo standing for?I had a similar acronym I used a few times and was only once asked to explain: "M&K" - or "...for Mum and the kids".

[calypso]

Does taking more fuel decrease safety? a couple of scenarios

On a CAVOK day you take plog fuel with a diversion 20 miles down the road, as a result your CMR is 30minutes + 10 minutes diversion. On approach you have a flaps or gear problem. Right away you are under a lot of pressure and safety will be lower because you cannot afford the time to deal with the problem properly. You will have to rush through the procedure and just land as soon as you can. You may have to accept a shorter runway or one with a higher crosswind.

On a normal day you fly into airport B with plog fuel. Join the hold and shortly afterwards you are told B is below minimums or closed (due security, blocked runway, etc). You divert to airport C. Unfortunately everyone else also diverts to C. Airport C is smaller than B and cannot handle all the arrivals. You hear another aircraft declare a PAN, then another, now you have to declare a Pan yourself. The system only works if only a few divert, only very ocasionally someone declares a fuel PAN or Mayday. Taking less fuel does not decrease the level of safety here provided everyone else takes more and are able to give you priority. You are in fact relying on the decisions of other commanders to take more fuel in order for you to be able to take less.

[Right Way Up]

Calypso,
On a CAVOK day you take 30 mins extra fuel with a diversion 20 miles down the road, as a result your CMR is 30minutes + 10 minutes diversion. After 30 mins holding, on approach you have a flaps or gear problem. Right away you are under a lot of pressure and safety will be lower because you cannot afford the time to deal with the problem properly. You will have to rush through the procedure and just land as soon as you can. You may have to accept a shorter runway or one with a higher crosswind.
On a normal day you fly into airport B with 30 mins hold fuel. Join the hold and after 30 mins hold waiting for an EAT you are told B is below minimums or closed (due security, blocked runway, etc). You divert to airport C. Unfortunately everyone else also diverts to C. Airport C is smaller than B and cannot handle all the arrivals. You hear another aircraft declare a PAN, then another, now you have to declare a Pan yourself.

[the_hawk]

Right Way Up, in your scenarios you add a 30 minutes hold on a normal day to the problems Calypso desribes, so you have two holes lining up where Calypso has one -> your scenarios are less probable -> higher safety achieved

[gatbusdriver]

I think you all have it wrong

You should always tank fuel. What if on approach you have the gear and flap problem, then you have a fuel leak, lose an engine then have a hydraulics problem.

It would be ludicrous not to tank up to max landing weight

[BOAC]

I think you missed out the :)?

[Yossarian]

Isn't this what we are paid for? Our knowledge and experience on a route. Carrying extra fuel through China or into Lagos, is arguably a must, but often not reflected in the Flight Plan. Having spoken to dispatchers at my airline, I have often seen a lack of understanding of the situation. Perhaps, as I am led to believe, dispatchers in the US have a more personal stake in the flight.

The company will occasionally flight plan us with fuel up to MLW, due to a chance of fog at hub. With this in mind, I have little compunction in adding what I consider neccesary for the specific flight I am doing.

All in all, I have never yet regretted taking extra fuel, but have sometimes wished I'd taken more.

[Right Way Up]

The_hawk,
Not necessarily as in my experience the first to divert tend to have an easier ride than the later ones. I am not a plog fuel pilot. Neither am I a full wings pilot. For every sector i take a professional view of the fuel reqts & if I believe there is a reason for extra fuel I take it. I then back it up with a proactive management of the fuel situation during the flight. Its no good getting to the hold with extra fuel, lazily look out of the window for 30 mins then act all shocked when you don't get an approach. The main problem is the people who mindlessly choose their fuel. The ones who take an extra 30 mins every time for "mum", or the ones who go plog fuel every time. It shows a complete lack of decisionmaking or management.

[Monarch Man]

The ones who take an extra 30 mins every time for "mum", or the ones who go plog fuel every time. It shows a complete lack of decisionmaking or management.

I disagree, most people use the word "mum" kids, etc etc to describe their own personal margins, which tend to be based on experience.
Plog dispatch operators tend to be very fuel aware, simply by virtue of their decision to despatch with the planned fuel.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I agree. "mum and the kids" is just a slang term for good judgement.

While the military, in time of war, may have good reasons to risk their men and equipment, only a bean counter who sits in a concrete buidling with a secretary to bring him coffee or tea and has never seen things fall apart at M.80 would cut fuel so close.

if pilots make rotten bean counters, bean counters make rotten pilots.

[calypso]

I am not advocating 30mins for Mum, meaning "just because I do that every day and it saves me from having to think too much". Each sector has to be judged on its own merits. One scenario might be bad weather but another may be an alternate that is so close that it gives you no reaction time should something go wrong on the approach to your destination. If the rules require an extra 15 minutes holding at 1500' in the case of no alternate required how can we then carry alternate fuel for only 6 minutes flying, because our alternate is very close.

Someone said that more fuel did not mean a greater safety margin. I disagree because more fuel gives more choices, ie the ability to chose a safer option and because the "divert, declare a PAN, declare a Mayday, get priority to land" startegy is all predicated on the fact that you will be the only one doing it. A very unlikely scenario if a large airport is closed and in any case relying on everyone else not taking plog fuel.

The situation that you describe where you take 30 minutes holding and then join the hold fat, dumb and happy is in effect no different to taking plog fuel and sitting on the cruise fat, dumb and happy. Those are just two versions of the same way of thinking. I don't think they are comparable, in safety terms, to anticipating potential problems and keeping your options open versus relying in a one size fits all strategy (ie the minimum fuel regs) and as a result ending up with no options left.

[Right Way Up]

Monarchman & Sevenstrokeroll,
What I am suggesting are people who use the same fuel every time. Some people take a set figure every time with disregard to the situation. That is proved when they blindly take their set figure with conditions that require a lot more.
The bottom line is that we are PROFESSIONAL pilots. Every fuel decision is important & requires more thought than a lot of people give it. It amazes me how many people arrive back in London with FG forecast that do not "plan" their alternates to be CAT 1.

[gatbusdriver]

I agree, each sector is based on its own merits.

Beware the people that say " I always take an extra tonne", there may be times you need more.

I personally don't carry extra based on what might happen, I carry fuel based on the facts presented to me via notams/wx/experience etc.

[rotorcraig]

More low fuel hysteria today in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=496112&in_page_id=1811) quoting PPRuNe (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3688761&postcount=16).

RC