4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time

[Sunnyjohn]

14 pages of mostly utter nonsense fuelled by whatever resentment against a certain company

Not quite. From the Irish Independent:

An Aer Lingus spokesman told the Sunday Independent: "The statement made by Michael O'Leary in the Sunday Independent of August 19 that an Aer Lingus flight from Cork to Spain on March 14 last 'had to call mayday' is totally incorrect. Due to adverse weather conditions, there was in fact what is known as a 'fuel pan' call. For clarification, a fuel pan call signifies a state of urgency, but no immediate danger, whereas a mayday call signifies a state of emergency and imminent danger."

In Madrid, Mr O'Leary admitted that one of the aircraft which landed in Valencia was left with just 28 minutes of fuel -- below the minimum level of 30 minutes.

[Hunter58]

What I am waiting for is for the significantly longer discussion about why the LAN flight arrived in the same place with definitely lower than minimum fuel. Ah, forgot, it is not Ryanair...

And I think it was discussd at length, Spain does not react to PAN calls? So Aer Lingus was in the same situation as Ryanair, no?

[BOAC]

And I think it was discussd at length, Spain does not react to PAN calls? So Aer Lingus was in the same situation as Ryanair, no? - in all my time I fortunately never had to test the theory which was handed down to me by old Captains. It could well be that Spain has woken up to ICAO in this regard and PAN worked. In any case, with 4 a/c heading for the same airport on min fuel, once one calls 'PAN' or 'MAYDAY'.........................................I think I would have started shouting too!

[leebrensten]

With respect, it's not the same at all. The Aer Lingus aircraft declared a Pan, the Ryanair lads declared Maydays. The law is clear as to the distinction between the two calls. The Aer Lingus aircraft landed with comfortably over the minimum fuel, and obviously never expected to land with less, hence the call. All of the Ryanair aircraft did have an efob under the 30 mins, and whether they eventually landed with more or not does not change the legal responsibility they had to declare a Mayday. I'm not a Ryanair fan(as a company), but personally, I think that the pilots discharged their responsibilities well, and that anyone who says they couldn't end up in a similar situation is extremely naive. However, it's extremely galling that that prat O' Leary jumped straight in with a denial, and an immediate offensive on unions/competitors, without the decency of just giving the truth, with which he had obviously been furnished. Why does it take a flagrant bunch of lies, spoken with his usual arrogance, or another load of bluster from his flunky McNamara, before someone has to defend themselves, and the facts are allowed to surface. It's embarrassing for professional pilots, both Ryanair and otherwise.

[Jamie2k9]

Why does there threat say 4 Ryanair aircarft made a Mayday call when in actualy fact it was 3 and the other was another operator.:confused:

[Headinclouds]

Yet again, a classic example of regulators asleep at the helm in ireland....

As for the 'Accountable Manager' in Ryanair.........carrying out his duties as per the AOC.....well....

[Aldente]

Interesting letter in today's Irish Independent from an ex Ryanair Training Captain :-

Normal 'mayday' - Letters, Opinion - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/normal-mayday-3214916.html)

Some of the comments below it make interesting reading too!

:ooh:

[fireflybob]

Interesting letter in today's Irish Independent from an ex Ryanair Training Captain :-

Normal 'mayday' - Letters, Opinion - Independent.ie

Some of the comments below it make interesting reading too!


After the Challenger Shuttle disaster the term "Normalisation of Deviance" was coined with respect to failure of the "O" Rings which caused the catastrophic failure. The deviation from acceptable had become so routine that those involved subconsciously thought this was "normal".

An interesting clip from You Tube here given by one of the shuttle astronauts:-

Normalisation of Deviance

Longer explanation here:-

Normalisation of Deviance

[BOAC]

While no defender of FR's mangement style, I do think a rational look at this event is worthwhile. Based on what we think we know, they all seem to have abandoned the MAD approach around 8000' so they would be about 500kg or so above div fuel. Into a hold to review the prognosis, and decision made to divert. Reasonable?

What is crucial now is when LAN declared the MAYDAY - as I have said before, there will inevitably be a 'ripple' effect on other a/c inbound to VLC on diversion once this happens, since they will become number 2+ and will be seeing 'Reserve' or less on landing on the FMC. Ipso Facto, and correctly, a MAYDAY call follows for the first FR a/c. Put yourself in the cockpit of the second FR a/c. What would you see on your FMC, and expect? Off goes your MAYDAY. Reasonable?

In aviation we have never planned to take 'extra' fuel for a div into a field just in case an emergency is in progress.

It may not have happened this way, but think about it - before you condemn out of hand the FR Captains' fuel decisions.

[fireflybob]

BOAC, agree with your analysis there - the more I think about what we know so far the more I feel that the Spanish authorities will have great difficulty in finding any fault with these flights.

My "normalisation of deviance" post refers more to comments by the Board that declaration of Mayday for fuel emergencies is "normal".

[JW411]

If I understand what is going on here:

The summary of the situation is this. Ryanair SOPs require any crew that thinks it might be in a situation whereby it might land with less than the 30 minutes of emergency fuel is required to call "Mayday".

That seems to me to be an eminently sensible SOP.

There should be no shame in declaring a "Mayday" for whatever reason. It doesn't matter whether the aircraft departed with enough fuel to fly around the world but, in the final analysis, if you are going to be in a position where you think you are likely to be landing with less than (in this case) 30 minutes of fuel, the there is no alternative but to call Mayday.

If I understand the situation correctly, the Spanish authorities have so far established that one Ryanair aircraft "arrived" at Valencia with 28 minutes of fuel left in tanks. Did they dip the tanks as the aircraft turned off the runway or did they dip the tanks after the 30 minutes that it took to get on stand?

I don't know what the answer is but if all this crap is about one aircraft arriving on stand two minutes short of fuel (28 minutes), then I am bloody glad that I have retired and, in particular, that I will never have to fly into Spanish airspace ever again.

[7574ever]

@JW411

Amen to that sir.

[Right Way Up]

Last 4 posts obviously are or were "proper aviators". Diversion at CNR will almost certainly mean you land with or near Final Reserve Fuel.......what if the winds are wrong, Atc hold you up or someone else gets priority because of an earlier Mayday. Those figures seem to reflect crews just about getting it right.
Personally I would be more concerned about the Lan flight......but that wouldn't be interesting. If people think making a mayday call is bad form have a read about Cove Neck.

P.s. just to confirm I am not a RYR apologist.....I cannot stand their corporate mentality, but it's unfair to question crews who seem to have got it right.

[LYKA]

Agree BOAC. However the EU method of dispatching and the lack of a flight watch system can leave crews with very little information or time to make informed decisions.

Maybe the "state-side" guys could comment on this senario in a co-authority dispatch system?

[BOAC]

The summary of the situation is this. Ryanair SOPs require any crew that thinks it might be in a situation whereby it might land with less than the 30 minutes of emergency fuel is required to call "Mayday". - a small correction - in that situation a PAN call is required. The MAYDAY when you WILL land etc etc. The unknown is the mentioned (supposed) Spanish ATC lack of response to a PAN.

LYKA - I am not familiar with the US dispatch system, but I cannot see what advantage it would bring here. In the EU, crews are trained and used to reacting themselves to situations and not relying on an external input.

[LYKA]

Which is kind of my point. The tendency for EU Carriers to take 4 or more OFPs and corresponding WX packs at the start of their duties is, to my knowledge common place. I believe FR aircraft do not have ACARS so updating dispatch and inflight replanning WX requirements can be problematic leaving the crew in uninformed and in this case a challenging operational set of circumstances. I'm not saying that a flight watch system would have changed the outcome, only the crews may have been in a better place to make a MORE informed decision before they entered the MAD TMA.

[BOAC]

Flight following would have sent the amended TAF/TTF indicating the requirements, - welcome to the forum. As posted here, FR do not have ACARS, so how would you propose 'Flight following' would pass the information to the crew en route?and the legally required fuel for such.- I am not aware of any such requirement in EUOPS.Furthermore, placing the blame on ATC is a complete nonsense. - where do you see this? As far as I can see there was no problem with ATC? The tendency for EU Carriers to take 4 or more OFPs and corresponding WX packs at the start of their duties - I cannot see a problem. In my experience, a new set of TAFS and ACTUALS is provided on each T/R and any revised OFP would be sent to the handling agent for the crew.

It worked.

[fireflybob]

I cannot see a problem. In my experience, a new set of TAFS and ACTUALS is provided on each T/R and any revised OFP would be sent to the handling agent for the crew.


BOAC, indeed this was the case in my 5 years with Ryanair

[Waspy]

Making sure your alternate(s) is/are open at arrival time (overhead alternate) @ ETA plus minus one hour is part of the planning... at least for me. We have this sort of situation happening frequently on our routes. Considering FR operates to rather small airports in general, it seems strange that wasn't taken into account ?

[BOAC]

it seems strange that wasn't taken into account ? - which alternate are you saying was closed?

[fireflybob]

Waspy, what makes you think the crews would not have planned accordingly?

[BOAC]

Squawk - you give us no clues as to your 'credentials' here, but I assume you are not a professional pilot? Commnets like "In fact that was not the case, as the forecast weather conditions changed en route" reinforce my assumption since they often do, and a 'Flight Follower' with no means of communication with the a/c competes directly with a chocolate teapot. 'Continuing' to Madrid is EXACTLY what they should have done. I certainly would have done, and I suspect most crews likewise. The decision is made on arrival at destination, and I suspect with that met special their plans were probably pretty well formed. There is nothing in that special to prevent the commencement of the approach, nor, indeed, a possible safe arrival. It is only by 'being there' that you will know. They were; they did.

[crispy banana]

Anyone like to comment on why only Spanish operators landed during that time? :hmm:

According to AvHerald:

Beginning 19:52Z until 20:48Z a number of aircraft on approach to Madrid aborted their approaches and went around including all non-Spanish operators, except for eight flights of Spanish only operators which continued their flights for landings on Madrid's runways 18. The Aviation Herald is still monitoring these flights, that landed between 19:52Z and 20:10Z.

[330pirate]

Pretty full of yourself squawk.

[BOAC]

Squawk - your post #303 is also full of Swiss Cheese holes. You need to understand that PPRuNe suffers from an inundation of 'enthusiastic amateurs' and 'new' posters whose total experience is a 'suitcase' are always viewed with suspicion. For your reference, all, including you, can view posters profiles if you are interested, so your 'p!!ssing contest was wasted. No real experience of JAROps? This whole thread is about adherence to such. Reference to 'dispatch' and 'Flight Following' are irrelevant. Reference to how 'you' operated outside JAROps are of passing interest only. Your 'mission' needs to be to change JAR/EU Ops I think. Even BA do not use that system, although they do monitor and communicate with crews.

Quote:
AT LEAST tempo holding for the forecast I provided, if not a full alternate.
- I have no idea what you are talking about. I trust you understand that what you 'provided' was a METAR and not a 'forecast'? How you expect a crew to plan for that I do not know - and what on earth is a 'full' alternate? I take it you are suggesting that on receipt of that actual YOU would have instantly diverted to your 'full' alternate? Hmm.

Crispy - I can vouch for such behaviour. An anecdote for you. Back in the early 2000's I was the only BA a/c on the ground at MAD (out of 5) with HF. A similar 'restriction' at airfield level was being placed on Maastricht allocated slots. Start-up clearance was being given to roughly 1 in 5 a/c, and all were Spanish and we were watching our slots 'evaporate'. We were all chatting on 'company' and I was relaying to LHR on HF. Purely by chance the senior BA ATC liaison manager was in Maastricht at a meeting and was phoned by LHR ops at my request. Suddenly we got start-up, no slot restrictions and the Senior MAD 'man' had a bo**ocking.. It sounds as if nothing much has changed.I can also recall holding as number 7 for R18 to find 20 minutes later I was number 9. Draw your own conclusions. Red Herring?

[Hunter58]

Sqwak

do you really expect any Management of any Airline to go out there and say that the fact that some Crews had to declare an emergency by applying the book is a catastrophy? They did not say it was an everyday occurrence, they only said that there was no reason to panic.

As you claim to have been in an operations management position you should actually know that. You say you have no agenda? So why the pissing contest?

The LAN flight was caught out big time, yet I still miss the ever growing thread about management abuse, bad airmanship and all the other BS that was given in this one...

[kick the tires]

I certainly trust my comments aren't seen as sponsoring some form of witch-hunt against the crews involved

Squawk is seriously deluded if he thinks that a brand new poster, with no credentials, a few words of here is my (so called) experience and a very obvious lack of knowledge of European airspace and procedures is going to influence anyone on here or from the Authorities!

Weird.

[BOAC]

Moving on, then , your goand what on earth is a 'full' alternate? I take it you are suggesting that on receipt of that actual YOU would have instantly diverted to your 'full' alternate? Hmm.

[transilvana]

Why spanish airliners landed in Madrid?

Maybe they had enough fuel to try the approach in Madrid and proceed to alternate or maybe it happens like in tenerife south were I land with no problem and I see Monarch, easyjet and ryanairs proceeding to Las Palmas because its windy, or maybe those guys in the cockpit entered the company with 200 hours and don´t know how to shoot a X-wind landing...

The question is why all of them declared emergency when the real one on emergency was a Lan Chile with an engine failure.

[BOAC]

Right - I see. Cross out the word "full" if it makes you feel better. - done - now it makes sense. What I meant by that was that an alternate may be carried instead of holding fuel, for example if it resulted in a lesser fuel requirement. - not permitted in those circumstances in JAROPS. For your information, then, JAROPS would require alternate fuel in tanks at g/a for that forecast - it would be extremely unlikely that a landing could be 'assured' there under JAROPS definitions. I'm sure all the Ryanairs complied with that. No-one would have dispatched with less than alternate fuel. Also JAROPS does not specify any holding requirement in fuel loads at destination. The rules are on-line if you wish to look at them. Given that the fuel policy is approved by the State regulatory body my company operates under, to disregard that requirement and continue anyway, THEN divert, THEN land without statutory reserves, I would probably find myself in deep legal doo-doo. - no difference, then - and the RYs did not intend to do so, nor did they arrive at MAD with 'insufficient' fuel, of course, as we trust you understand with your experience?

[Dan Dare]

From an ATC angle I find multimple fuel Maydays rather chilling too. As airports start scheduling to maximum runway capacity there is often no slack in the system to make up delays. We are expected to sterilise the runway for about 5 minutes for the arrival of a fuel Mayday - increasing the chance of further fuel emergencies. Multiple simultaneous Maydays would perversely seem to delay each other - maybe we then have to break the rules and reduce sterile runway time, but that tends towards giving the Maydays no special treatment.

Airlines seem to be increasingly arriving with minimal holding fuel. Throw unexpected weather (and reduced landing rate) in to the mix and you get days like I have had where the special treatment of one Mayday has a domino effect so that you get multiple emergencies and practically no special treatment allowed for any of them. It is particularly uncomfortable to be on my side of the radio, but you can really hear the fear in a pilot's voice as they are approaching with insufficient fuel to go around in LVPs.

One day the regualtors and airlines will have to justify why they have done nothing about the reports of close calls when it does not end with relief.

[BOAC]

Dan - indeed - a point I made a while back about the ripple effect of a MAYDAY. It is inevitable and must be very uncomfortable for ATC.

By the way, crews should ALWAYS have enough fuel to perform a g/a and second approach - in or out of LVPs - they may well then be into PAN or MAYDAY because of the legislation, but certainly in LVPs they should always have approaching at least an hour's worth of fuel in tanks at g/a at destination unless the circumstances are extreme

A little like the cross-filing of LGW/LHR by Big airways, where you could have a/c going round at LGW to divert to LHR with a/c going round at LHR to divert to LGW. Loads of fun there for ATC!

[BOAC]

The forecast I referred to was the one you introduced.:ugh: :
AT LEAST tempo holding for the forecast I provided, if not a full alternate. This is getting very silly. If you want a 'professional discussion' behave that way. Of course there is a 30 mins holding requirement at alternate. If you understood the rules you would know that.Your previous post said "and I did not have the fuel to continue and hold/divert," which is what I was trying to clarify for you.There is NO requirement for a hold at destination in the fuel load in JAROPS. Yes, I know it is 'semantics' but they, unfortunately for some, are the way adults communicate. If you repeatedly use the wrong/inappropriate words, what are we to do? Take you seriously? I would have expected with your self-proclaimed immense managerial/supervisory experience you would have understood the need for clear language?

Regarding what happened to the RYs, you are confusing planning with events, which is surprising in view of your claimed experience. We have a well-known expression this side of the pond with which you may not be familiar - 'sh!t happens'. It looks like it did..

I appreciate you are new here. There are plenty of threads in this forum where the more general issues you are querying have been discussed, and I would suggest they are a better place that this on this particular 'MAYDAY avalanche event. Yes, I agree planning for a min of 30 at alternate is not wise in that weather. I say again, I do NOT think the RY crews did plan that. It happened that way.

[kick the tires]

Squak - What is a 'full' alternate???

Is there such a thing as a half alternate?

Its a bit like people calling the tower and saying 'fully ready' - you are either ready or you are not ready. An alternate is either acceptable or not acceptable!

[BOAC]

KTT - he/she sorted that out in #322.

[kick the tires]

BOAC - I missed it, what was the post number again, mineis on #320

[FullWings]

Looking at the big picture, there was forecast poor weather at a busy airport. Many, maybe even most crews took extra fuel but the severity of the conditions meant that approaches and landings were not possible at times and delays grew rapidly beyond the capability of some to absorb.

Quite a few flights diverted to alternates, creating congestion at these airports as well.

After all the aircraft stopped moving, there had been no injuries, no damage and from what we can see, compliance with all the regulations as far as legal fuel policy is concerned. No dead-stick landings off-airport, no flameouts on the taxiway, just a few urgency and/or distress calls on the radio to preempt the above.

The system seems to work!

[BOAC]

Sorry KTT - dyslexia rules, KO? #'312

[kick the tires]

Sorry KTT - dyslexia rules, KO? #'312

thanks, I'm none the wiser having read his answer! Ironically, he complains about semantics and then goes on to write that reply!!!

[FullWings]

Wings, I'm aware of at least 2 aircraft that landed with less than statutory final fuel reserves on this day.
Which ones were those and did they land with < reserves or was that what was in the tanks at the gate after XX mins taxi and some APU usage?

Instead of the wake-up call this day (arguably) should be, it may be brushed aside and fuel policies amended by other operators aiming to maintain a competitive business.
Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong angle but what went *really* wrong in Spain that day? What are you suggesting as a modification to the rules that would have made things "better"?

[BOAC]

KTT - I think (semantically:)) the meaning was what WE call an alternate as opposed to the 'good weather forecast so I can plan without a (full) alternate" iaw JAROPS.

[bubbers44]

I, in 23000 hrs have never landed with less then required fuel. I have deverted when dispatch said to keep holding but never did when fuel was at minimums. Yes, I have landed at minimum fuel but going to the alternate was not going to be any better..

[FullWings]

As far as regulatory changes I'm afraid I have no real answers as I don't know if it's quite as simple as that.
That's mostly my view as well. As I observed earlier in the thread, it's not so much about how much fuel you take to begin with, it's what you do when it's running out. It's about having a plan 'A' but also plans 'B', 'C', 'D'...

You could divert early to get to an alternate with reserve plus some holding fuel - problem is, that puts you at the back of the queue behind those who are arriving close or at reserves. Priority only returns once you're in the same boat, so you haven't really gained much.

That difficult-to-define quality 'airmanship' comes into focus in these kind of situations. Running out of fuel in the hold or on the way to somewhere else is not a good option, so it comes right at the end of the list. Reserve fuel is there to be used if necessary to ensure a positive outcome if things have conspired badly against you. You don't initially plan to dig into your precious last half-hour but if unknown/unforeseen factors have come into play, you might have to.

It's also about being able to smoothly fall back to the next option, which may require abandoning some SOPs or contravening day-to-day regulations. When airports become 'full', it normally means they have run out of regular stands and maybe some taxiways. It doesn't necessarily mean you can't land there on a MAYDAY, just that parking might be difficult. Even if there's something stuck on the runway, it might be possible to use the remaining length to stop in. Taxiways themselves can be used as auxiliary runways in extremis. When the poo really hits the extractor, you may have to ignore ATC and just tell them what you're doing. Being mentally prepared to take unorthodox action should you need to is vital, if the remaining options involve a crash...

[Thedocster1]

My understanding is that a Captain is in command of his aircraft for all phases of his duty. That includes the planning and safe conduct of the aircraft first and foremost. If the Captain fails to plan correcty taking into account weather etc, ( in this case TS at their destination), through incompetence, negligence or coercion by company policy, then perhaps it's time to look for a new form of employment in another industry. Outside a mechanical failure, there is no excuse for fuel shortage whether you fly a C172 or an A380. Remember the old adage, Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

[fireflybob]

Yet again ! - How long until the aviation authorities actually take some kind of action ?

about a loss of pressurisation that was successfully dealt with by the operating crew?

[tommoutrie]

I think we're all missing the really important bit of this thread.
BOAC.. Have you really posted over fifteen THOUSAND times?

[The Ancient Geek]

Storm in a teacup.

737 pressurisation problems are known to happen occasionally. Any airline with a large fleet of these will have experienced this more than once.
Loss of cabin pressure and the use of masks are part of every passenger safety briefing.
This is an event which all crews are specifically trained to handle, they did what was required and the outcome was, as usual, a success.

Just part of life's rich tapestry. Think of it as a wakeup call to passengers to actually pay attention to the safety briefing.

[paparomeodelta]

As I stated before, I have flown FR 100+ times and have nothing to complain on, you just have to know what you buy.
In that spirit I must share this anecdote about MOL:

Arriving in a hotel in Dublin, he went to the bar and asked for a pint of draught Guinness. The barman nodded and said, "That will be one euro please, Mr. O’Leary."

Somewhat taken aback, O'Leary replied, "That's very cheap," and handed over his money.

"Well, we try to stay ahead of the competition", said the barman. "And we are serving free pints every Wednesday evening from 6 until 8. We have the cheapest beer in Ireland"

"That is remarkable value" Michael comments

"I see you don't seem to have a glass, so you'll probably need one of ours. That will be three euros please."

[RAT 5]

"Ah, Michael, I see you using a bar stool; that'll be €3. What about a bear mat for only €1? And don't even think about a free pee." "But don't forget we do have the cheapest beer in Ireland."

[flydive1]

"Ah, Michael, I see you using a bar stool; that'll be €3. What about a bear mat for only €1? And don't even think about a free pee." "But don't forget we do have the cheapest beer in Ireland."

Well, if is real bear skin then is quite cheap. White or brown? ;)

[stephenkeane]

As a pax (but FSX experienced) it concerns me that less fuel=less weight=more profit. Where does safety come into it, can a Captain insist on having adequate reserves of fuel? Is there pressure in this current economic climate to cut corners? If a Captain has to declare a Mayday due to insufficient fuel, is their employer going to stand by the Captain and say they were complying with our SOPs? I doubt it, they will say Captain is solely responsible for the safety of their aircraft. I would rather pay more for my ticket and get to my destination (or near to my destination e.g. Ryanair) in one piece and I'm sure most pax would say the same. Wasn't there a fatal crash in the U.S. a few years ago due to lack of fuel, and the crew not making enough noise to atc they were running out of fuel?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif

[stepwilk]

crash in the U.S. a few years ago due to lack of fuel...

For what it's worth, way longer than "a few years ago." United DC-8 going in to Portland in the late 1960s, if memory serves. Can't remember if the captain had a gear-indicator problem or what, but held while trying to deal with it while the flight engineer kept telling him they were running low on fuel.

Had nothing to do with uploading insufficient fuel.

[NigelOnDraft]

For what it's worth, way longer than "a few years ago." United DC-8 going in to Portland in the late 1960s, if memory serves.I suspect the recollection is the 707 into JFK? Avianca Flight 52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52)

IMHO, it must be understood, there is usually little "danger" in despatching with company fuel, or even less... there is no obligation on the crew to land at destination, or hold extensively. They can divert early, declare a Pan or Mayday (which are hardly dangerous actions in themselves), or even land en-route somewhere. Conversely, as with Portland and JFK, an aircraft can despatch with plenty of fuel, but run out due poor decisions or communications.

Declaring a Mayday for lack of fuel is not indicative of a safety problem. Landing with less than Reserves more so, but still not an issue if communicated ahead, given priority. IIRC (but may be wrong) of the 4 x RYR who declared a Mayday, 3 landed with Reserves+, and 1 a fraction below. I'd rather fly with an airline who were happy to call Mayday, if and when required, to ensure landing with Reserves than the opposite :ooh:

[stepwilk]

You're right, of course. Avianca. Happened 50 miles from where I'm sitting.

[crispy banana]

IAA report via Ryanair.com (http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2012/iaa_report_valencia_EN.pdf)

[BOAC]

Looks pretty 'kosher' to me. The only 'finding' I would query is Conclusions 3. Since they were diverting from 10-14000ft (admittedly the 'wrong side' of MAD) and not from g/a, they in fact had significantly more than min div fuel if approx 2664kg was the figure.

I cannot fault the fuel planning of the 3 a/c. I do, however, feel that a review of any required div fuel safety 'buffer' above the current requirements should be undertaken by EASA and I certainly agree that MAD need to NOTAM the increased fuel requirement for R18 - been there, done that.

[Wirelock]

with the report published into the VLC event, it would be nice that AESA take a look at the airline in Spain that frequently dispatch aircraft in unsafe manner

[racedo]

You get the feeling that AESA and Ana Pastor knew the contents of the report last week but then did everything they could to try and get their revenge in first.

[BOAC]

the diversion fuel is expected to be from a defined point. If you're not actually at THAT point, then the diversion figure from flight planning is completely irrelevant. - and starting from an orbit SW of MAD rather than the 'defined point' they would have been better off, no?

So now,let's just select, train, and check correctly the pilots and give them the freedom to think their fuel with appropriate material in quantity and quality to provide enough information. - and the very best of luck!

Hey! - was that a pig just flew past my window?

[fireflybob]

Am not surprised to see the findings of the report and am pleased to see that the crews are without any blame.

So now it becomes the responsability of EASA to "think" for the pilots?

The very thought of that fills me with dread!

There is a difference between doing "things right" (robotically following a set of rules) compared to doing the "right thing". (The former is management, the latter leadership).

Technically all the rules were complied with. It is necessary to have rules to establish the minimum requirements but as pilots we also need to have "original thought" to secure a safe and sensible operation. I don't blame or criticize the individuals concerned because they have, unwittingly, been programmed by the system.

If the environment you work in has become overly structured and regimented then without realising it you personally can stop looking at the world with a contrarian mindset.

If you look at the psychology of "Conformity amongst groups" you find that if you are the only one with an opposing view you become very reluctant to express that view and just "go along with the crowd". If a group of you get together with an opposing view it is much easier to get your point across and change behaviour.

I mention this aspect because Ryanair pilots have no group representation (aka a Union). This means individuals play safe and conform with the "party line". This, in my opinion, can spill over into Flight Operations. There may be no direct threat to carrying excess fuel but the culture of the Company could make you feel vulnerable if you elect to do so.

Experience also comes into this. The veterans who have flown for many decades with several (too many!) Companies in many different theatres of operation would have no hesitation in loading an extra hours holding if they feel it is necessary and would be quite happy to argue their case. Those who lack experience and have only operated with the one Company will, apart from the odd exception, feel reluctant to do so.

So the issue to me is not the legitimacy and compliance with the "rules" but having the confidence to make the correct decisions without any fear of doing so.

[victorc10]

The diversion routes are published on the FP, they are direct.

It is not necessarily ALL about experience because experience will drive you towards the everything normal scenario. It is a lot about common sense and assuming the worst case scenario. How many times in the past 15 years did my fuel decision save me......once. 1hr overburn and not one second of that in a hold!! landed 300kg above final reserve.

I have experience, that told me there would likely be no problems, it was common sense told me to take a whole bunch of gas!

[Thunderbirdsix]

I notice no one has mentioned from the report that one of the aircraft was struck by lightning and a window overheat alarm was triggered.

Madrid ATC certainly dont come out in the report with flying colors, the word panic from them springs to mind.

[BOAC]

Like I said I'm very loathe to be drawn into these specific cases - quite agree, but 90% of this thread is full of criticism and vitriol about 3 Captains who according to the FSX experts here were 'frightened' to uplift extra fuel and obviously messed up, when if we accept the IAA report, they all behaved correctly, sensibly and 2 out of 3 made it with the planned minimum fuel, 1 just 'missed' by just 75kg. It reads to me that all 3 diverted with more than the 'blessed minimum' so they HAD thought about it.

If we could all accept that it would be good! I'm afraid I can't agree that the information provided necessarily exonerates the crew however. Each aircraft had a Captain in the left hand seat at all times. - can you explain that remark? I read that they all handled a bad situation well - are we all sure how we would have fared?

Thunderbird - the strike and o/heat are not significant in this, that is why.

Victor10 - sounds as if you didn't take enough!

[Thunderbirdsix]

- quite agree, but 90% of this thread is full of criticism and vitriol about 3 Captains who according to the FSX experts here were 'frightened' to uplift extra fuel and obviously messed up, when if we accept the IAA report, they all behaved correctly, sensibly and 2 out of 3 made it with the planned minimum fuel, 1 just 'missed' by just 75kg. It reads to me that all 3 diverted with more than the 'blessed minimum' so they HAD thought about it.

If we could all accept that it would be good!


BOAC best post so far, I hope the guys who are Ryanair bashing come to their senses, Ryanair is a very safe and well run airline and if an airline can have 25 years of safe flying its some record to be very proud of.

[captplaystation]

I think what the IAA report demonstrates is that the need to declare an emergency (correctly identified & complied with. . . how many others not mentioned that night - wonder why ? perhaps just crossed their fingers & scraped in with less than minimum OR flew the approach to MAD & landed in the middle of a TS, isn't that rather more worrying ? ) has been used by an unscrupulous bunch of hypocritical political honchos to try & bolster their agenda. Particularly distasteful given the alleged history of the head of the agency concerned.

The Monday Morning Quarterbacks can now have a field day saying how they would have made an earlier decision etc etc. It is of course a very mobile/dynamic situation and very difficult to actually assess/determine exactly how it would have all panned out if you had been there on the night (most of us evidently weren't)
Wholly agree, in that I "like to think" (given the actual weather,volume of traffic present likely to be in the same mess as me , & the well known & documented chaos that appears to have been at least partly present in VLC /MAD ) that I may have made the Div call a little earlier, however that is supposition on my part & indeed their decision was fundamentally sound, the need to declare an emergency as much attributable to less then optimum vectoring/sequencing as being a late decision.
Whilst in broad agreement that this whole episode does not reflect too favourably on Ryanairs (or most other companies ) obsessive fuel policy, all 3 Commanders here appear to have taken ,& thought through the reasons for doing so, extra fuel. It is not stated if the failure to receive updated wx at STN had any bearing on that aircrafts fuel uplift, but, you have to say it has mainly been an exercise in mud-slinging by the snakes that pass for politicians.
Never too keen to trumpet a victory for MOL, but when his adversaries are the low-life that passes for "leaders" in most countries, I prefer to side with him & his pilots particularly as we now see that everything was indeed in order. The flights I have taken recently in Spain seem a little less well subscribed, hope that is due to a seasonal lull rather than loss of public confidence due to all this bull. I imagine he is looking at some legal action against them for putting in the public mind that there was some justification to suspend his operating licence, difficult not to wish him well in that.

[JW411]

crispy banana:

I thank you for posting the link to the IAA investigation. I have to say that I am not in the slightest bit surprised by the results. All of us who aspire to being professional pilots will recognise that each decision made by each captain was well thought-out and will find their decisions difficult to criticise. They all did a good job. They all landed at their alternates in one piece with no injuries to report. One of them was 75 kgs short of fuel.

I am sure that he will buck-up and get it exactly right next time!

As a retired old fart, I will tell you a story that I have probably already told you before but it DOES bear repetition.

I was based at JFK flying DC-10s. We went through a summer month during which I got struck by lightning eight times in the vicinity of Long Island.

One day, a Pan American 747 made a go-around in front of me and asked for a diversion to EWR (Newark). Next morning there was a huge story on the TV and in the papers about a Pan Am 747 running out of fuel as it taxied in at EWR. It only had two engines left running when it got on the gate.

Two days later, I was doing a PIC upgrade on the DC-10 with the local Fed on the jumpseat from JFK. We had a good day out and ended up in the pub. The FAA guy told me that he was most interested in the fact that our computer flight plan showed EWR as an alternate but gave the distance as 150 nms.

I pointed out that we had programmed our computer to NEVER accept the distance to an alternate to be less than 150 nms.

He then (after another couple of beers) told me that Pan Am were working on EWR as being 27 nms from JFK. That is why they almost ended up in the Hudson River. It is simply not possible to get a 747 from JFK to EWR in 27 nms.

Those of you who are as old as I am now will surely agree that Pan Am were the very first low cost airline?

I don't think so.

Of course, the youngsters on Pprune will be asking; who the hell were Pan Am? They might equally be asking who the hell were BOAC and BEA?

[condorox]

The IAA mentions that a LAN A340 declared mayday (and ATC confused it with one of the Ryanairs). It does not give any more details about that emergency as it's outside of its remit.
However, the aviation herald reported that it was in a much more critical situation than any of the Ryanair flights, having consumed 750 of the reserves.
The LAN also "lost" an engine. It would be good ti know if it might have been related to the critical low fuel situation.

BTW, it's good to note that the AVherald proved to have the facts right in its original report of the events of 26th July, and if anything went into more detail than the IAA report:

News: Thunderstorms in Madrid on Jul 26th 2012, landings, diversions, fuel emergencies and Ryanair (http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355)

[lederhosen]

If I was the line manager (base captain) of the guy that planned 283 KG extra with prob 40 thunderstorms (according to the IAA report) into a major hub and he blamed the agent for not providing updated weather, my first question would be why did you leave without it? Sure the press and the Spanish are on a witch hunt but I think we should also consider the factors encouraging such behavior.

[Sober Lark]

Reading the report it looks like Anna will have to extend extra Pastoral care to Spanish ATC.

[bubbers44]

BOAC, agree with you 90% of the time but the USA pilots are also the final authority on final fuel load. We can upload any time we want, I have many times knowing what I was dispatched with was marginal with expected holding. We usually agree with dispatch fuel because they normally do a pretty good job but sometimes I would have had to divert if I hadn't added the extra fuel.

[captplaystation]

reivax, my remarks were intended as an (intentional ) slur on the very large Spanish loco who I am sure wouldn't have troubled themselves with declaring an emergency.
You may not know, but we had many Spanish FO's in RYR when I was there (2002-08) and we were made very aware of how things were in our Spanish competitors.

Sqwauk 7600, at what fuel level would you suggest they make the decision to divert ? if they do it at Div Fuel + final reserve (as they all did) it is rather difficult to offer any legally based criticism (again we are back to Monday Morning Quarterback teritory here.

[always flying]

POOR AIRMANSHIP.

I don't care if its wind / delays / weather or anything, if you are flying around your destination eating into your alternate fuel then you shouldn't be a pilot. If they were employed at my company I would have fired the lot of them!

[RAT 5]

"The first question I ask is "why am I waiting?". If the event causing me not to be able to land isn't likely to change before it's time to divert, then the answer is "immediately". Why wait?"

I wonder if the hairs were getting active on the back of some necks; and hoping there was not going to be a need for a hold or G/A at VLC. Reading into the quote above it relates to the old adage of "it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground."

[RetiredF4]

The IAA report (http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2012/iaa_report_valencia_EN.pdf) report highlights the true problem imho, madrid control or whatever their callsign is today. Nothing changed since 20 years ago when i ended up in Vallodolid in a similar WX situation and without help from ATC.

In a WX situation like given ATC has to expect flights getting close to their diversion fuel and have to organize the diversions according to the actual fuel remaining figures (in hours / minutes) and have to inform the crews abbout the intended sequencing and the necessary time until landing. That way confidence into the ability to handle the situation is developping in the cockpits and that should keep everything calm and in order. If this confidence gets lost in one cockpit and the first mayday call is out in the open, the following unknown resequencing and unknown time for the own landing leads to the next mayday call and the next necessity to resequence the rest of the flights. It´s like some kind of domino effect, not stoppable anymore.

As the fuel figures turned out i see nothing wrong with the fuel loaded, with the fuel when diversions started and even not with the figures they finally landed. But sometime in the sequence some crew (we even don´t know wether a Ryan Air flight declared the first mayday, do we?) lost enough confidence in ATC to handle the diversions in that way, that the fuel would be suficient. That was when the chips started falling, and only ATC coud have prevented the situation from further decaying.

But as i said before, they hadn´t been able in the past, and when nothing changed or will change, then it´s going to happen again.

franzl

[LEMG]

Nobody answer to the main question.
Why only three RYR declared Mayday except Lan with technical problems.
Can anybody answer this question?
Thanks in advance.

[Thunderbirdsix]

Nobody answer to the main question.
Why only three RYR declared Mayday except Lan with technical problems.
Can anybody answer this question?
Thanks in advance.


Will you read the IAA report it spells it out what happened, this is getting silly at this stage

http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2012/iaa_report_valencia_EN.pdf

[LEMG]

I say again. Tell me a reason why nobody else declare mayday in the same conditions of weather, ATC etc.
I´m not talking about why RYR declares mayday.
Do you understand what i mean?

[hetfield]

@LEMG

More fuel?

[LEMG]

It could be...

[Tom!]

@LEMG

That technical problem of LAN you talk about, did you read this from the avherald website:
A LAN Airlines Airbus A340-300, registration CC-CQF performing flight LA-705 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Madrid,SP (Spain), estimated flight time 3:10 hours, was on final approach to Madrid's runway 18L when the crew went around from about 4000 feet MSL at 20:02Z. The aircraft climbed to FL120 and followed delay vectors until 20:22Z (20 minutes) when the crew decided to divert to Valencia. Still on a westerly heading in opposite direction to Valencia the aircraft climbed to FL280 before turning east to Valencia. On descent towards Valencia the crew declared Mayday reporting being low on fuel. The aircraft reached Valencia descending through FL100 at 21:09Z and subsequently lost an engine. The aircraft landed in Valencia at 21:16Z 74 minutes after going around in Madrid with 1300kg/2860lbs of fuel in the left wing tank and 800kg/1760lbs of fuel in the right wing tank remaining substantially below the required minimum final fuel reserve of about 2800kg/6170lbs.

[LEMG]

No problem , one more mayday due to low fuel, but not 3 from the same airline and about Av Herald i´m still waiting for the RYR MAD and LBA-MJV incidents.
Tell me if you find them.
Thanks

[racedo]

You are quite free to contact Simon if you feel the incidents are worthy of mention as they are already in press.

Not every airline incident gets listed because there are simply too many of them.

[LEMG]

Ok thanks.
BTW, Air Europa incident is not true.
Little bit strage.
Globalia desconoce si un avión de Air Europa aterrizó de urgencia en Madrid (http://www.preferente.com/noticias-de-transportes/noticias-de-aerolineas/globalia-desconoce-si-un-avion-de-air-europa-aterrizo-de-urgencia-en-madrid-233717.html)

[captplaystation]

LEMG. . . . it is always possible (believe me VERY possible) that Vueling/Air Europa etc were in even deeper sh1t than Ryanair but basically told no-one, or, just pressed on & landed in the middle of the TS at MAD.

If we are constantly going to slag off RYR, whose standards - and faults , I know VERY well (did you work for them LEMG ? or have you worked with REAL pilots who worked previously for a Spanish carrier ? No ? . . I thought not) lets balance it all a bit by acknowledging that my first paragraph here is maybe not so far from the truth.

As I stated a few posts ago, who do you feel safer with, a bunch of pilots who will declare a "Mayday" if it prudent & justified to do so, or a bunch of pilots who A - land during an active TS , or B - land with ? ? what amount of fuel onboard, but say nothing to no one. Do you really think Ryanair were the only ones in MAD that night with a similar fuel level . . . . Nah :=

[eu01]

The next one. Today at 9:30AM an emergency landing in Billund on route from Alicante to Gothenburg (FR 9086). I'd say: enough is enough. Even if no real danger in question, the media fuss will only intensify.

[LEMG]

Squawk 7600
I totally agree with your statements.

[condorox]

There are clearly lessons to be learned. FR has reviewed its fuel policy, and we can only hope that Spain will look at the delays that night to see if they could be handled any better.

In Spain's aviation investigation's agency website, there is finally an entry on the 4 incidents on the 26th July (3 Ryanair and 1 LAN -and yet the title of this thread still has it as 4 Ryanairs!)

Anyway, I insist on the LAN A340, which has the following interesting info on it (It's in Spanish, but I translate the important bit: Analysis provided by the operator identified the engine had stopped due to low fuel flow.

26-julio-2012. EI-EKK. Boeing B737-800. CC-CQF. Airbus A340-300.*EI-DHH.* Boeing 737-800.* EI-ENM. Boeing B737-800. Aproximación al Aeropuerto de Valencia. - 2012 - Investigación - CIAIAC - Órganos Colegiados - Ministerio de Fomento (http://www.fomento.gob.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/ORGANOS_COLEGIADOS/CIAIAC/INVESTIGACION/2012/APROXIMACION_VALENCIA.htm)

Just to show that there was a witch-hunt, it was reported in Spanish media that AESA was requiring all Ryanair incidents to be reported at once, and only later changed that to include all airlines.
Yet, publicly they have not even mentioned the LAN incident, but it's welcome that it is included as part of the review that the Spanish agreed to do after their meeting with the Irish counterparts.

[teddyman]

How many of you guys have been flying in Spain lately? Iberia get priority.
Chatter in Spanish- Add TS to that and you have a nice mix. Good luck to everybody.

[Depone]

Squawk-7600

Having re-read the thread to try to follow your reasoning, I still find myself unable to agree with you.

It has been obvious right from the initial report by Simon that the root cause of this situation was the decision by the operating Captains of the 3 flights in this discussion to continue to hold, by their own volition, until they reached just greater than their minimum LEGAL diversion fuel, and then they requested a diversion, during which they discovered (somewhat unremarkably) that the legally required fuel was not enough for the prevailing conditions

I'm confused. I have read the IAA report and I also recall post 225 and the surrounding discussion which proved that the Ryanair aircraft did not hold at MAD. I know the initial Ryanair statement was misleading because it spoke of holding but that was also explained (discredited) in this thread.

It has also been said on this thread that carrying 10,000 kgs of extra fuel is no better than carrying 500 kgs if you burn that fuel holding before requesting a diversion. But that is not what happened here. In this case, the aircraft diverted nigh on immediately. As I said before, simple arithmetic based on the departure fuel, the fuel onboard at the point of diversion and arrival fuel on each aircraft does not support the proposition that anyone wasted time. The MAYDAYs were made in accordance with international procedure once at the diversion field when the aircraft could not wait any longer.

I don't wish to 'play the man' and with due deference to your 17,000 hrs in the cockpit, I respectfully query whether you have flown much in Spanish airspace in the last few years? It was stated earlier that AESA proudly stated that aircraft belonging to 8 Spanish operators didn't divert and landed on 18R while the Ryanair aircraft were heading off to VLC. Having operated from MAD and flown into most Spanish airports numerous times, the allegations of which you complain certainly resonate with me, if not you. In fact, I would have thought the fact that solely Spanish carriers landed at that time backs up the allegations to an uncomfortable degree.

Regards.

[airwaves747]

Been reading some of the posts here and like many, I wonder why the crews waited so long to divert based on min diversion fuel and no extra.

In present outfit, the diversion fuel is based on a cost index of 0 and not the normal 35 - which can be a bit of a gotcha, as your obviously going to burn a lot more than it says in the plan unless you change to cost index 0 for the diversion.

As the old saying goes ' you only have too much fuel - when your on fire ! '

[Aldente]

Having said that, the fact is it does have rookie mistake x3 written all over it.

As a grey haired grizzled ex RYR skipper, I would have to agree.

There is just not enough experience in either seat. Poor decision making was made that night, not least of which was that one a/c departed for Mad in those conditions (both Wx and a known busy TMA) with just 283 kg above FPL fuel !! Yes, it was legal, but sensible ?......

The decision to divert was made too late.

I remember meeting a newly promoted Capt once (ex cadet, just over 3000 hours) who told me that he had never done a diversion whilst in either seat !

The IAA report cites many other contributory factors apart from Ryanair's fuel policy, however these were present for ALL operators that night - apart from the LAN Chile, why were the three other Maydays from Ryanair aircraft ? .......

I'm sad to have to say it buy I won't fly with them anymore. This is just the tip of a very large iceberg .....

[RAT 5]

Listening to F/O's approach briefings they always deducted RESV fuel from arrival fuel and declared they had X minutes holding fuel in hand. When the weather is bad they did not include things like a G/A and 2nd approach and then divert: did they have enough to do that? Something to think about. They didn't reduce calculated holding time BEFORE declaring a diversion to allow ATC to coordinate the diversion. In some areas I've had to wait 5mins for a diversion clearance. There's also the coordination with the company to consider. If there is a choice of diversion which do they prefer. If you all go to the same place will you re-fuel and fly again, or bus the pax on buses that don't exist anymore? Entering an area with TS, or Fog, or any other cause for a diversion I'd have every option airfield's Metar written down and a priority list decided upon BEFORE entering the lion's den. I always declared a decision time when reaching destination in bad weather. Capt's who've never diverted might never have benefited from the thinking and deciding process, so when it is their call they are learning as they go. Amazingly F/O's in some companies report that their command courses did not include class-room discussions about such scenarios. It would be wonderfully useful education to have group discussions about what you'd do if...... and what thinking process and variety of considerations come into play. A/C with no method of contacting company directly, or operating into an airfield with no radio for the handling agent need a captain with a wise head and that often comes from having seen it done before. If captains have not diverted it is likely they've not done a G/A from minimums. I remember my first one as an F/O; it was such a surprise and amazing, especially as I saw the approach lights whistle under us as we climbed away. Before it had been just a sim exercise. Having done it the mystery was now clear. Once I'd seen an ace captain do a G/A from a CAVOK visual circuit the lesson was learnt. I was fortunate to have had a sound apprenticeship. That is lacking in todays rapid promotion process.

[Depone]

As they say around here, you've got the wrong end of the stick. 'Nothing to see here' was a humorous way of deflecting attention from my mistake.

Pprune is a great resource but the potential for misunderstanding when people post ambiguous or incomplete opinions is huge. That was just a joke but one has to read statements on Pprune carefully before rushing to conclusions.

Incidentally, I happen to agree with 100% of the criticisms of Ryanair's fuel and command upgrade policies. Nevertheless, what many pilots flying the line at Ryanair actually in practise to mitigate those ill-thought-out policies is another thing altogether.

I flew out of MAD with a young, say sub-30 yr old, Ryanair Captain 2 years ago. He took 1 ton of 'extra' fuel on an internal flight back to MAD because of the delays. And that was a day with CAVOK.

[fireflybob]

The crew which only uplifted 283kg of extra stated they did not get a new TAF in STN.

Legally they wouldn't need to since the earlier TAF they had covered their ETA +/- one hour. Whilst I agree it might have been better to have the latest TAF would this have made any material difference?

It is obvious that flight crew who are employed by the hour and without protection are pressured into carrying less and lesser fuel and diverting later and later.

Do you know that the subject crew(s) were contract crew paid by the hour? A large proportion of their pilots are on a Ryanair contract. I don't think the issue of whether or not they are contract crew is that relevant.

A point I would like to mention is the expediency of not carrying excess fuel for commercial flexibility let alone safety.

On many flights it is totally appropriate to take flight plan fuel, ie no weather problems, anticipated ATC delays etc.

On some flights it is foolish in the extreme not to take some extra fuel. Given the TAFs mentioned I would like to think that I would think in terms of taking at least an extra hour's holding bearing in mind TEMPO means a change not exceeding one hour.

If you get there and TS prevents an approach you then have the endurance to hang around for up to an hour - by that time said TS has cleared the field and you make an approach and land.

Can anyone tell me that it is, from a holistic point of view, more economical to be on the ground at the alternate because you took flight plan fuel?

Surely the main objective is to get the passengers safely to their desired destination?

[jackharr]

I do understand the theory that carrying fuel costs fuel but how much does carrying extra really cost?

Let’s say that B737 has TOW is at 65,500 kgs instead of 65,000 kgs. Approximately, how much extra fuel would be consumed on a 1000 mile sector? I have to say that in my days as a BAe146 pilot, I never could detect any difference when carrying that little bit extra.

[fireflybob]

I do understand the theory that carrying fuel costs fuel but how much does carrying extra really cost?

Let’s say that B737 has TOW is at 65,500 kgs instead of 65,000 kgs. Approximately, how much extra fuel would be consumed on a 1000 mile sector? I have to say that in my days as a BAe146 pilot, I never could detect any difference when carrying that little bit extra.


Jack, it's a good question to ask. On the B737-800 you're looking at circa 20/30 kg per hour per tonne. Not much on an individual flight but a Company like Ryanair operating circa 1,000 flights per day every day tots up to quite a bit of gas and therefore money!

But we are not talking about carrying extra fuel on every flight are we but just those where it is clearly prudent to do so? OK it won't be always necessary but perhaps we should remember that these machines don't run very well on air and that accidents are expensive too!

[Bealzebub]

Roughly 4% per hour of the excess carried. So if you are carrrying 500 kg extra on your 1000 mile flight, 3 rotations a day, and the other 150 aircraft in the fleet are doing the same, for 365 days a year, you are burning around 13,141,000 kg a year (over Thirteen thousand tonnes,) just in tankering the excess fuel alone.

At a price of $1100 per metric tonne, that is $14,455,100 (nearly Fourteen and a half million US Dollars a year.)

[BEagle]

Roughly 4% per hour of the excess carried. So if you are carrrying 500 kg extra on your 1000 mile flight, 3 rotations a day, and the other 150 aircraft in the fleet are doing the same, for 365 days a year, you are burning around 13,141,000 kg a year (over Thirteen thousand tonnes,) just in tankering the excess fuel alone.

At a price of $1100 per metric tonne, that is $14,455,100 (nearly Fourteen and a half million US Dollars a year.)

Which, given that Mikey-the-Pikey's 'airline' allegedly carried 78.48 million passengers in the 12 months to Aug 2012, to be sure, to be sure, works out at about 11p per passenger.....:hmm:

[Squawk-7600]

As I said above Jack, the cost to carry additional fuel is sweet FA on sectors of this length. When I was flying ultra-longhaul I'd load an extra tonne, and finish up with only something like 650 kg at the other end!!!

BB, the figures you produce are typical of contemporary management BS, and (no disrespect to you intended) but this is precisely the sort of crap that is being circulated. In fact nobody is advocating loading extra fuel on EVERY sector, only where it would be prudent to do so. Furthermore, coming up with a composite figure is a complete nonsense. It is STILL only a percentage of the total fuel burn, and not a very high one at that. Definitely not relative to the emphasis being placed on it by non-pilots. Washing aircraft and maintaining their exterior condition (seals etc) results in very significant fuel savings, but how often do we hear of that line pushed :rolleyes:

[Bealzebub]

However much sympathy I have with what you both say, it is a sign of the times and one we are obviously going to have to get used to. These days it is often the ancilliaries that determine the profit or loss on a seat. So when a Kit Kat means make or break, that 11p or 40kg per hour, or whatever number you want to put on the sheet is going to come in for close scrutiny.

Your 11p becomes their fourteen million dollars.

Washing aircraft and maintaining their exterior condition (seals etc) results in very significant fuel savings, but how often do we hear of that line pushed

I am hearing it every week, these days. Anyone who ignores potential savings in this market is likely to find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, and in the world of "low cost" that washes less than the aircraft used to be!

[Squawk-7600]

Oh yes, just like removing an olive from the salad was going to save an airline :rolleyes: Believe me, there are bigger fish to fry!

[Zoyberg]

DLCM...

Excuse my ignorance but your post (presumably from RYR mgt) refers to CIL's advice on (CIL@on) holding. I can't search this abbreviation as its only three letters..pls advise.

[Meikleour]

BEagle:At last .....a voice of reason!!!!

The "bean counter" argument which is so often cited should be seen in perspective relative to the increased crew workload and curtailed operational options taken against the trivial possible savings which may or may not be made.

[fireflybob]

Trouble is the beancounters seem to be running the show these days!

And then there is customer service - wouldn't passengers want a higher probability of getting to their chosen destination with least delay?

[JW411]

Just as a matter of interest, I had a coffee with one of my friends this morning. He is a current A-340 captain. I asked him about how he would feel about landing with 800 kgs in one wing and 1200 kgs in the other wing with one engine already failed.

His first reaction was that the crew concerned had obviously forgotten to open the cross-feeds.

He also reckoned that this fuel state in an A-340 would just about allow ten minutes of flight before complete disaster.

Since two of the FR aircraft landed with 30 minutes of emergency fuel and the other one was 75 kgs short of this figure, perhaps some of you might like to comment upon the fuel planning of the LAN Chile crew?

As you all already know, LAN Chile is not really the flag carrier for their country but just another low cost carrier like FR.

[RAT 5]

Does anyone know the experience of the crews? Total hours of captains, total on type and total in RYR? What about the F/O's; new cadets or seasoned F/O's? Were any locally based? How many times had the captains been to Madrid? Lots of data to better assess the decision making process.

[JW411]

RAT 5:

I presume you are also seeking the same information about the LAN Chile crew?

[JW411]

By the way, unlike RAT 5 and God knows how many sciolists out there, I have actually flown LAN Chile schedules! When I flew for Fred Laker about three thousand years ago, we had a brand new DC-10-30 (G-BGXF) painted in LAN Chile colours (and very nice it looked - until later).

We flew Santiago-Miami-JFK and Santiago-Rio-Madrid-Orly-Frankfurt.

I have three great memories:

1. The Chileans were amongst the nicest people I have ever met.

2. The cabin staff used to change at Madrid. I have this undying memory of two of the male cabin staff going all the way from Madrid to Turin by rail on their days off to buy Fiat car spares which went in the belly and were to be sold in Chile for a vast profit.

3. As already mentioned, 'XF had been painted in LAN Chile colours. It turned out that Fred Laker had been persuaded by one of the finishing companies to try a new type of paint that would eventually be water-soluble.

I was taxiing out at JFK one night in a Laker DC-10 when 'XF landed from Miami. It had been through a thunderstorm somewhere near Miami and half of the LAN Chile paint had come off! It really did not look good. A bit like a Rembrandt - best viewed from a distance.

The JFK Ground Controller asked me what airline that could possibly be?

"I wish I knew" said I.

Sorry RAT 5 to steal your thunder; back to you.

[Mikehotel152]

RAT 5

The report states that all three FR aircraft started the day in MAD, so one would presume that they were locally based. Mind you, there are lots of 'floaters' rotating into MAD for a week at a time.

It is probably not a relevant point though.

Familiarity with MAD might have led to complacency but the two weeks I spent operating out of that hell hole taught me to take an extra ton wheneve coming back to base!

[Cacophonix]

Any commercially savvy outfit will fly as they have to. Ryaniar are just such an outfit. They have nothing to answer to save the fact that they operate within the bounds of current legislation and the laws of morality!

Pilots are moral entities after all.

[16024]

Enjoy the view:
It seems completely flipping obvious to me, that the higher the total fuel bill, the less an individual decision to ensure safe operation will impact, as a percentage. Using the figures quoted in this thread, close enough for the sake of argument, half an hours' extra holding costs about 30 quid.
The bean counters say they accept diversions and their sums still say carry minimum fuel. Then again if they were that smart they'd probably be airline pilots or something.
And Caco:
The company certainly will have something to answer for when the moral entity, acting within the legislation dumps 189 paying punters into the undershoot, a la Avianca.

[Dan Winterland]

''Any commercially savvy outfit will fly as they have to. Ryaniar are just such an outfit. They have nothing to answer to save the fact that they operate within the bounds of current legislation and the laws of morality!''


And they will explore and exploit any opportunity to reduce the minimums and reduce costs. This treatment of the limits as a target is enforced on the Captains against their better judgement and experience, by fuel tables and "chats" (without tea and biscuits) in the office.

The result is that to stay "competitive", other operations do the same and now we have a number of aircraft all approaching an airport at the same time with bad weather - all who are on minimums and have to declare an emergency to be safe when the more sensible would have been to carry more fuel. However, the Captains are afraid to do this.

We have seen the limits of the system stretched in this incident. If nothing is done to regulate this policy, the probable result will be an aircraft having to put down somehwere at other than an airfield with a high likelhood of loss of life.

[Dan Winterland]

''Reading the threads here you'll find lots of pilots who dream of flying KC-10's or KC-135's, tanker planes!''

A common misconception is that tankers always have a lot of fuel. It's true that they usually have a lot of fuel when they take off, but a tanker pilot's perfect trip is to get airborne with 80 tonnes and land three hours later on fumes. Their job is to give it away and will usually oblige a fighter who wan't just a little bit extra. I flew tankers for about ten years and always tell my FOs that I won't be offended if they insist on carrying a bit more fuel.

Beware of ex-tanker pilots - they think nothing of landing on minimums!

[BEagle]

Hi Dan!

Lest others think that AAR crews are cavalier with their fuel planning, if the mission has gone well, the aircraft should arrive at destination with any unused contingency, plus alternate fuel.

For a typical modern tanker, the alternate fuel calculation includes the go-around at destination, climb to optimum altitude, cruise at long range cruise speed, descent, approach and landing, to arrive with not less than 30 min 'green-dot' holding fuel at 1500 ft. The fuel used to the alternate will be corrected for ISA dev and significant wind, as well as deviation from the reference landing mass value.

[lederhosen]

The odds on the alligators showing up in this particular swamp were always going to be higher. The endless posts on pprune about Ryanair and spanish air traffic control demonstrate there is no smoke without fire. No individual component can be singled out as being to blame but the combination was nearly incendiary.

The authorities say getting below minimum reserve or thinking you will is a big deal. Military pilots are of course used to much greater risks. The point is that Ryanair is not the military and its passengers have a right to expect they will not routinely be involved in an emergency situation.

This is a system problem, which hopefully all parties will learn from. The fuel coaches (as some airlines call their experts) will hopefully focus more attention on what to do in the case of diversions with widespread bad weather. Diversions are fortuately rare occurences for most airline pilots. More emphasis encouraging people that diverting with more than minimum fuel in this kind of situation would be a good start.

[fireflybob]

Driving at 30 mph down a street where school's turning out may be legal but probably is less safe for pupils going home.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it makes sense.

Airlines surely have a duty of care towards their passengers?

[c53204]

I guess the crew have an interest in their own safety and would not knowingly put themselves at risk (or their cabin crew/passengers) at risk.

[Dan Winterland]

From BEagle: "Lest others think that AAR crews are cavalier with their fuel planning".

No of course they aren't - and the criteria you mentioned are exactly the minima my current operation stipulate. Except that we don't use them! The bare legal minimum has little flexiblilty and no 'fat' should something go wrong - like mulitple aircraft all diverting on minimum fuel. The tanker pilots would happily go down to these minimums in the right circumstances. in fact, they will sometimes on a trail (a long distance fighter deployment) give fuel away knowing that they have to divert - for if the formation fuel burn has been higher that expected (quite common) it's preferable for the tanker to divert that a fighter which may have live weapons or requirements such a liquid oxygen. And tankers aren't carrying fare paying passengers.

As I mentioned, my current employer doesn't cut to the minimum. We have a policy of aiming to land with at least one hour's fuel left (2.4T for an A320) and the fuel plan always has built in extra to take it to this and usually more. Admittedly, my home base has quite severe weather from time to time, is in a mountainous area and had political considerations which make some nearby alternates unusable, but safety is always put ahead of profit. I have never heard of a pliot being castigated for carryng too much fuel in ten years at my company.

I did a JAA A320 rating last year to keep my JAR licence current. The TIRE gave me flight plan from his company - a Low Cost Carrier. It was printed that morning, from the live weather and I was suprised to see the fuel from LGW to AMS was 3.9T arriving with 1.9T using Rotterdam as the alternate with only the 5% contingency added. I can happily state I have never landed an A320 with less than 2T in 5000hrs on type.

[autoflight]

Regulations don't seem to allow for additional contingencies. Diverting to an alternate is often associated with additional weather diversions and ATC sorting out multiple diversions to same alternate. Each of these can add considerably to the alternate burn.

Sometimes alternate itself can have good weather, but many aircraft will need to backtrack to exit, meaning 4 nm separation on final is insufficient causing additional high burn at low level. A go around due an unexpected missed exit by preceeding aircraft when already at 30 minutes would be no fun, especially if other aircraft are also claiming very low fuel.

Any captain who always accepts the company's computer flight plan minimum fuel is a idiot. Company pressure to accept is intolerable and pilots should, as required, adjust fuel to their own requirements. Resist pressure, regardless of any conception of company consequences.

[BEagle]

1600 flights daily with challenging operational conditions, smaller secondary airports, non precision approaches, circle to land, short runways, narrow runways.... on daily basis....

As a matter of fact, most FR pilots have an extensive experience of diversions, probably well above average of many major airlines flying into large airports.

Well, speaking personally, I think I'll continue to fly with real airlines which operate from normal airports and which don't need to divert quite so often.

[transilvana]

All has been said, but: what happens if everyone on that day declares emergency? and I mean all the traffics at VLC
You are on ATC: who gets priority?
You are the pilot: Are you going to jump over the rest of your colleagues?

Asking for a mayday implies that you get priority but, what happens if your priority gets others in the same situation? That´s airmanship.

[Vim Fuego]

BEagle

Out of curiosity, why isn't Ryanair a "real airline"?

[BEagle]

Well, as far as I'm concerned a 'real' airline is one which:

Treats its passengers with courtesy
Does not abandon its passengers to their own fate should the aircraft become unserviceable
Has a decent level of customer services
Does not indulge in high pressure sales tactics throughout the flight
Does not cut every possible corner, in order to maximise profits
Does not challenge its commanders' fuel decisions
Does not consider a Mayday event to be 'routine'
Is run by someone who both respects and is respected by customers and employees alike
Employs its own aircrew
Employs its own cabin crew

[hetfield]

@BEagle

Spot on....

Very well said:ok:

[Vim Fuego]

Can't argue with much of that. However, it's a shame 70m+ passengers don't feel as strongly. Therein lies the problem.

[Meikleour]

BEagle: Have you noticed that the "apologists" for the FR flights actions on that day always quote the fuel values pertaining to the nearest 10kgs. when even the manufacturers acknowledge that there are levels of inaccuracy inherent in their fuel gauging systems. Bit of a hobby horse of mine this but it worries me that there are crew around who really believe thay can rely on their fuel gauge readings 100%!!

[racedo]

Treats its passengers with courtesy
Does not abandon its passengers to their own fate should the aircraft become unserviceable
Has a decent level of customer services
Does not indulge in high pressure sales tactics throughout the flight
Does not cut every possible corner, in order to maximise profits
Does not challenge its commanders' fuel decisions
Does not consider a Mayday event to be 'routine'
Is run by someone who both respects and is respected by customers and employees alike
Employs its own aircrew
Employs its own cabin crew



Based on the above then BA is not a real airline unless you call abandoning passengers when its crew go on strike yet again, flying when engines out from LAX, abuses customer data and is convicted in attempting to get passengers to change airlines, gets its maintenance so screwed up that a pilot gets sucked half way out a cockpit window, lands on no fuel......................and the list goes on.

Then again BA uses its PR budget and has done so for years to upgrade Editors and Journalists to ensure good PR.

[fireflybob]

Based on the above then BA is not a real airline unless you call abandoning passengers when its crew go on strike yet again, flying when engines out from LAX, abuses customer data and is convicted in attempting to get passengers to change airlines, gets its maintenance so screwed up that a pilot gets sucked half way out a cockpit window, lands on no fuel......................and the list goes on.

I have no remit for either BA or RYR but playing the devil's advocate!

1. Industrial action can affect any airline (apart from RYR which is not unionised....yet!).

2. The engine out from LAX has been debated before - depends which side you sit on but I think using this case in the argument is a trifle disingenuous!

3. Yes there was a dirty tricks campaign but I think that was from a different era.

4. Every airline has maintenance issues from time to time.

(My pith helmet is suitable donned!).

I recently went to a half day conference on marketing. The speaker was very well qualified. He said that since 2008 there had been a major change in how consumers decide who to purchase from. They are much more interested in knowing what a Company believes in and why they do what they do (not this fuzzy mission statement c**p by the way!).

In many ways Ryanair can be described as very successful and on the whole it does what is says on the tin.

They may have millions of passengers flying with them on a monthly/daily basis but what loyalty do these passengers have to the brand "Ryanair"?

If another operator comes along who can offer a better and more transparent service (which could even cost more!) I am sure many would change their chosen carrier overnight.

[fireflybob]

Ryanair Comedy Song by Eric Gudmunsen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_nqwAKCq-Q)

Much truth!!

[16024]

He just wiggles around, or ignores them.
A good example being failure to have passengers occupying the overwing exits unless they paid extra. If nobody was prepared to pay, then the emegency exits went empty, until, one assumes the IAA grew some and said "Oi, O'Leary, no!" or words to that effect.
Enjoy the view: I don't think anyone is criticising your ability or experience, but when the Cheif Pilot, genuinely fine fellow that he is, lets this sort of thing go until the regulator allegedly steps in, what hope does the average pilot on the line have.
I know you are allowed to carry extra fuel if you really, really can justify it, and have provided evidence to back it up. But you can't deny the constant drip, drip, nagging pressure not to. And I'm sure there's no other company in the western world (possibly not anywhere) where you would get a letter for being 30kgs over the allowed "without justification" figure.
That's not a misprint.
I still cherish the letter: it reminds me how much better off I am now...

[BOAC]

I highly doubt any airline would stipulate to their pilots that they are to hold at the destination until their FOB = minimum diversion fuel before they were to divert. - there is point which many have missed here and it should be a lesson for all - I trust RY have taken it aboard in their training - it is ILLEGAL under EUOPS to do this in the weather conditions which existed that evening.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

My old airline used to ask us to "hold for as long as possible".

I'm sure they didn't mean it literally.

[CelticRambler]

Out of curiosity, why isn't Ryanair a "real airline"?

Because it (consistently) makes money. :E

And it breaks the rules, which - from a commercial point of view - is fine by me because none of the "real" airlines have yet come up with a service that responds to my needs. As for loyalty? Well, I've just paid my highest price ever for a RA return ticket (50€) because even allowing for the 180km drive to an out-of-the-way airport (no parking charges) it's cheaper than driving to my local railway station, paying for parking and a 3-hour, 350km train-ride to a busy major airport so that I can pay three times the price to fly with a legacy airline and arrive at the same destination four hours later.

For understandable reasons, there is an obsession in the airline industry with SOPs, checklists and diverse regulations, but this obsession carries over into the business side of the operation risk-taking is essential. If EASA and the national agencies exclude risk-takers - as they do with their insistance on "financial criteria" for start-ups, then the established operators will always have the sky to themselves, write their own rules and leave us humble customers with precious little choice.

Whether Ryanair rattles that particular cage by highlighting poor ATC practices, challenging government policy across the EU or telling its pilots to keep fuel carried to a minimum and declare an emergency if things get tight, then good for Michael O'Leary. I can't wait for the day one can buy a 'plane ticket in SuperValu or SuperU.:ok:

[Nemrytter]

...telling its pilots to keep fuel carried to a minimum and declare an emergency if things get tight...
What happens if all airlines do this? You'll end up with every inbound aircraft declaring an emergency and then get into a hell of a mess. No matter if you've declared an emergency or not there's still a limit to how many aircraft a runway can handle in a given amount of time.

[JW411]

Squawk 7600:

You have become unbelievably boring. You are not getting your message over and not many of us are listening to you any more.

Studi:

I have trained many German pilots in my flying career and I have to say that
I have usually enjoyed the experience.

You, however, are about to go on my Ignore List.

I am sure that you will take that as a huge compliment and continue to bore the a**e off everyone else on pprune.

[Al Murdoch]

Squawk 7600 - could you elaborate on that point please? The part about being illegal to hold in the weather conditions that evening? cheers.

[BOAC]

Squawk 7600 - could you elaborate on that point please? The part about being illegal to hold in the weather conditions that evening? cheers. - actually that was a quote from my post.

Since we do not have any idea what your experience/qualifications are from your 'profile', may I suggest you help us and talk us through your thought processes if you decide to hold at MAD until you reach FP div fuel? EG

Why are you holding?
When do you expect to commence an approach?
What fuel would you expect to arrive with at DA R18 MAD?
Would that be 'legal'?
Are you a pilot?

but I wouldn't think that they waited for the "displayed" minimum reserve fuel to initiate the diversion. - the only info we have is in post#308 and the IAA report where we are told the min div fuel was around 2600kg, and they all appear to have waited until they were within a few 100 kg of that.

[CelticRambler]

What happens if all airlines do this? You'll end up with every inbound aircraft declaring an emergency and then get into a hell of a mess. No matter if you've declared an emergency or not there's still a limit to how many aircraft a runway can handle in a given amount of time.

Then maybe the regulatory authorities will wake up to the fact that airlines (and the environment) should not be made to pay for bad ATC management, bad national transport strategy and obstructive regulation that stops new ideas - technical and commercial - being introduced to the industry.

[Dan Winterland]

From the Mail on line.


Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy after making THREE emergency landings because planes almost ran out

By Ray Massey

PUBLISHED:19:55 GMT, 20 September 2012| UPDATED: 06:34 GMT, 21 September 2012


Budget airline Ryanair has been ordered to 'review' the amount of fuel it carries after three of its planes – including one from the UK - were forced to make 'Mayday' emergency landings in Spain when they started to run out .

The airline was operating with a level of fuel that was 'close to the minimum' required in the case of a diversion, they said.

Three Ryanair Boeing 737-800 aircraft heading to Madrid were forced to make emergency landings after being diverted to Valencia because of thunderstorms over the Spanish capital.

Ryanair was operating with a level of fuel that was 'close to the minimum' required in the case of a diversion

One of the three affected planes was heading from Stansted Airport to Madrid when the diversions and emergency landings occurred at Valencia on July 26 this year.

The Irish Aviation Authority Report noted: 'All three aircraft declared an Emergency (Mayday) when the calculated useable fuel on landing at Valencia was less than the final reserve.'

The watchdogs accept that all three Ryanair planes left for Madrid 'with fuel in excess of Flight plan requirements' and also with fuel 'in excess of the minimum diversion fuel' required, so remained strictly within the rules.

However, the IAA also noted: 'Diverting with fuel close to the minimum diversion fuel in the circumstances presented on the evening in question was likely to present challenges for the crew.'


Ryanair Chief executive Michael O'Leary said the airline's safety standards are on a par with the safest airlines in Europe

It has also questioned whether the current fuel limit rules give passenger jets enough latitude land safely in the event of a diversion from Madrid – and asked Spanish aviation chiefs to look at them again.

Spanish pilot union leaders have accused Ryanair of 'operating on the very limits of legality' in the way it fuels its planes. But Ryanair has consistently denied any wrong-doing and says the report vindicates their stance that its planes fly within the rules.

In its recommendations for the future the IAA said: 'Ryanair to review fuel policy and consider issuing guidance to Crew with respect to fuel when operating into busy airports with mixed aircraft operators and types, particularly in poor weather conditions when diversions are likely.'

The watchdogs said the airline should use such scenarios in its pilot training 'with particular emphasis on diversion management.'

It also calls on the authorities to 'review delays into Madrid to consider if additional fuel should be recommended or required to be carried in normal operations.'

The report said the three Ryanair passenger jets were put into an initial holding pattern to the Southwest of Madrid 'which increased the diversion time' before they were diverted to Valencia.

The crews did declare an Emergency in line with oprtational procedures when they became aware that the calculated amount of useable fuel for landing at Valencia 'was less than the final reserve.'

All three aircraft landed at Valencia without further incident, said the IAA watchdogs.

Commenting on the diverted plane from Stansted – flight FR5998 – the report says that as they descended in 'severe weather' to land at Madrid 'the captain decided to discontinue the approach as he noted that two aircraft ahead had performed a go-around' – effectively a landing which is aborted close to the runway.

The Stansted plane was then diverted to Valencia where the air traffic controllers 'seemed overwhelmed with the traffic load.'

Told that they were facing a 10 minute delay at Valencia, 'the crew declared an Emergency (Mayday).'

They followed in two other jets which had also declared an emergency – an Easyjet and a Lan-Chile A340.

In Madrid Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary said:'We welcome this official report into the Valencia procedures on the 26th July last which confirms that all three Ryanair aircraft carried extra fuel and that all three complied fully with EU Ops procedures.'

'We also welcome this week's joint statement of the Irish and Spanish Transport Ministries which confirms that Ryanair's safety standards are on a par with the safest airlines in Europe.'

The IAA recommendation came after Irish and Spanish aviation officials met in Dublin this week following comments by Spanish authorities about incidents in their airspace involving Europe's largest budget airline.

[A and C]

I am told that Spanish ATC was in meltdown and stopped responding to repeated requests to divert from the Ryanair aircraft, this resulted in at least one Ryanair aircraft telling ATC that he was taking up a heading for the diversion airfield.

Perhaps someone has the ATC tapes and we can find out is the Spanish government outrage towards Ryanair is justified or is this an attempt to cover up the shortcomings of the ATC system.

If one reads the Spanish press Ryanair are getting a slagging out of all proportion to the incidents that they have had and I am wondering what is driving this ?

[Bergholt]

A and C

'If one reads the Spanish press Ryanair is getting a slagging out of all proportion to the incidents they have had and I wonder what is driving this.'

Ryanair is now the largest airline in Spain. The Spanish economy is in a parlous state and, as any pilot flying in Spanish airspace on a regular basis will tell you, Spanish ATC is a shambles. It is not uncommon for Spanish aircraft to be given priority.

This is a an attempt by the Spanish press to divert attention from some serious shortcomings within their own country.

[BOAC]

From the Mail on line.
Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy after making THREE emergency landings because planes almost ran out

By Ray Massey
- why post a mis-quote from an official document that we have had access to for 2 weeks?

Typical DM hysterics, and quite possibly incorrect reporting too - I do NOT read CLEARLY that EasyJet declared an emergency, and no RY a/c 'almost ran out'. 29.xx minutes is not 'running out'!.

Here is the link to the IAA report. I suggest everyone reads it before posting?
http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2012/iaa_report_valencia_EN.pdf

[Captain Greaser]

Just read the IAA report. Well done Ryan Air pilots on doing a great job and operating by the book.

[WetFeet]

I notice that newspapers, including the Mail, include accusations and/or quotes from thr Spanish Pilots union. Are any FR pilots members of the Spanish union or are these Spanish union sources just quoting based on rumour and what they have read in forums like this. I thought FR was a non-union company but maybe that has changed.

[BEagle]

I'm currently in the process of refining a planning system for a couple of specialist users, who use an earlier Airbus type.

I note from the FCOM Vol. 2 that:

No destination to alternate diversion fuel planning figures are published for diversion distances of less than 100nm.
No corrections for head/tail wind component are published for diversion distances of less than 200nm.
The flight profile assumes that the diversion to the alternate will be flown at long range cruise speed at not less than FL100.
A VFR approach is assumed.
Corrections must be made for deviation from reference landing weight, ISA deviation, use of anti-icing and use of 'normal' air conditioning.


Using the destination-to-alternate planning tables for a 150 nm diversion (roughly the same as Madrid to Valencia), the minimum fuel state at which to commence the go-around at destination in order to arrive at the alternate with final reserve only is 4589 kg, assuming landing at the alternate at the reference landing weight. However, Spain with summer thunderstorms? If you assume you're stuck down at FL100 and are given an extra 50 nm of vectoring, might well need engine anti-icing and normal air conditioning in ISA+15 conditions, plus an IFR approach at the alternate, the figure rises by another 1080 kg....

What assumptions are normally made for diversions to alternate aerodromes these days? I imagine that some flight dispatch organisation plans the fuel required, but do they take everything into account, or just use the basic figure corresponding to the optimum diversion flight level and direct distance?

[Dan Winterland]

@ 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.

[Dan Winterland]

@ BEagle.

You have to remeber that FCOMs are operator and regulatory authority specific and I suspect you have one of these rather than a generic FCOM - or I seriously hope so and this isn't Airbus policy!

In our operation, the alternate route is planned at the destination landing weight for actual met conditions for the company route to the alternate at cost index zero with eng anti ice on. We have planned and pre-loaded routes for all the nominated alternates and the flight plan defaults to the regular alternate. If a different one is planned, the route can be selected in the FMGS and reviewed to see if the fuel burn is correct.

The route plan on the paper flight plan to the alternate is assuming the standard missed approach from the runway with the shortest arrival arriving at the alternate using the runway also with the shortest arrival. The FMGC will plan the fuel with the actual track distances and the crew have the option of changing the alternate fuel if they see fit.

[Mikehotel152]

While the basic details have already been set out on this thread, ie GA and m/app procedure, climb to cruise and full STAR into the alternate, like BEagle, I would be interested to hear exactly what assumptions are made when calculating fuel for diversion.

Ultimately though, even a better calculated diversion fuel requirement could not cover the scenario where multiple aircraft are diverting from a major airport with poor ATC to a minor airport whose ATC is swamped. The amount needed in that case is determined by a pilot in receipt of all the facts at the time.

Finally, Dan, is it not the case that the amount of extra fuel is almost irrelevant if that fuel is burned before the diversion commences? Had these aircraft diverted immediately after discontinuing their MAD approaches they would have had more fuel at VLC. So it comes down to airmanship backed up by guidance from up on high as to when to commence a diversion.

[BOAC]

Exactly - you can carry 5 hours extra 'holding' fuel, hold for 5 hours and then divert since the EAT was +5:30 or you carry 5 mins extra and divert immediately.I would opt for 45 minutes giving enough for half an hour holding and a missed approach.- we do not recognise the 'missed approach' in EUOPS as part of 'extra fuel' - is this an HK thing?

[16024]

The IAA report gives fuel on landing to the nearest Kg.
I'm just wondering how they worked this out.
Also, by quoting "landing" fuel, I assume that they meant "arriving on stand" fuel, which could be 100 or even 200 Kgs less than fuel on touchdown. I know it's splitting hairs, but standing up in court, I'd rather be 1Kg over the line than 1kg under, especially if the whole world is trying to judge me.
Boeing fuel gauge errors notwithstanding, etc.

[Meikleour]

ASKFAP: hear hear!!!!

[BOAC]

Come on, the actual precise amount of fuel to the nearest kg is unimportant. The crux of the matter is how/when they diverted and ATC issues. The fact that they EXPECTED to be below Final Reserve is all that matters. Getting involved in gauge errors, dripsticking, etc etc is irrelevant.

[Sober Lark]

Why would the IAA have to prove how inaccurate the fuel gauge is when Boeing already publish the figure?

[BOAC]

Surely the safest procedure would call for crews to upload 2.5% more than the plog fuel to allow for gauging errors - I cannot believe I am reading this! However, I'll play. That should be +195kg for 'full wings', should it not - RY allow 300kg. QED??

Gauge errors have NEVER been taken into account in my time, nor are they related to "the plog fuel" in any way, shape or form. In any case, an over-read will almost certainly stay an over-read all the way down (and vice-versa) and you would never know unless you drip, and that is inaccurate in itself. Never known a pilot drip the wings before diverting.:confused:

Assuming the final figure was from the tech log then not 1 RY a/c went below gauged F Reserve, if that matters..

[BOAC]

I'll still play! Where do you get 400kg from (737NG)? Try halving that.

[Stan Woolley]

Boac
Actually from the IAA report two of them called Mayday after requesting diversions and being given or hearing long delays enroute to VLC. Given Spanish ATC's general attitude to Ryanair and with the workload the controllers found themselves under the Commanders had little choice but to declare an emergency , otherwise they may have been treated with little priority until they found themselves in an even tighter corner.

The holding point RESBI to the South West of the field , the opposite side to the diversion airfield has a big part to play, without an FMC to punch it in to, I could not even find it at all on the charts - considering I was in a quiet room with no distraction.Not easy for the crews *given the weather and spanish ATC. *Most would have started getting nervous ,or at least up to full concentration ,in such circumstances , including me. (An experienced pilot and Tre)*

The ' burn them' witch hunt mentality displayed by some on this thread and lack of empathy is really sad to see, and not justified in my experience .*

[BOAC]

Boac
Actually from the IAA report two of them called Mayday after requesting diversions and being given or hearing long delays enroute to VLC. Given Spanish ATC's general attitude to Ryanair and with the workload the controllers found themselves under the Commanders had little choice but to declare an emergency , otherwise they may have been treated with little priority until they found themselves in an even tighter corner. - not sure why you addressed that to me - I think they handled the situation in which they found/placed themselves absolutely correctly too.

[Stan Woolley]

In post #488 you said they expectedto be below FR fuel. This was afterthey decided to divert and as a result of poor ATC.

I was just highlighting this point, I in no way include you in the 'Witch Hunters'.
Sorry if you thought I did.

[BOAC]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, the approx 400kg error I refer to is based on a full load including the centre tank.......der - you'd need a Final reserve of over 7800kg to make that relevant! I can see Ryanair going for that.:)

In any case, you need to look up NG fuel tank capacity, I think. Your figure should be over 520kg, not 400.

[fireflybob]

Maybe I missed something but how do we know the tanks were not dripped on arrival?

[BOAC]

Yup - 522'ish if ALL 3 tanks over-read to max limits (unlikely?). Remember, though, that when you get to buttock-clenching time, it is only wing tank error we are (bizarrely:confused:) looking at. If I had ever got near F Reserve in civilian life it would be accel/decel/pitch/fuel starvation that would focus my mind, not 195kg.

[JW411]

I wonder how many of you out there have actually had to measure your fuel upload using the magnetic drop sticks provided in most aircraft tanks? I have.

In fact, my last company had a policy that if we had to use any of the drop sticks then we were to add 500 kgs to the fuel required.

They simply are not really any more accurate than the fuel gauges except when a fuel gauge is inop and despatch is permitted within the MEL.

Therefore, I think that it is a complete red herring to argue about how the IAA might have measured the final landing fuel.

Since we are nitpicking, you will note that I said landing fuel. That is where the planned fuel for the flight comes to an end. Nowhere does it mention the fuel required to taxi to the ramp which is where the final fuel would normally be calculated. (Taxi-out fuel is calculated but not taxi-in fuel).

One night JFK became flooded and everyone (including me) ended up at EWR. In those days EWR only had two customs gates so we all ended up parked on a disused runway waiting for a gate. I had Kuwait Airways on one side and a BA 747 on the other side. We were out there for 5 hours.

Now, I freely accept that this was an unusual event but at what point would the authorities (in this case, the FAA) have checked the final fuel contents on landing?

[BEagle]

Having studied the IAA report, my conclusion is that it is the planned destination-to-alternate profile which should be reviewed.

If your planning assumed a 150 mile diversion, climbing to FL310 and descending for a VFR approach - but you then found yourself stuck down at FL100 and being vectored around the ying-yang by ATCOs close to meltdown, then you're on a hiding to nothing.

Many years ago, 'no delay expected' at London Airport meant that no delays in excess of 20 min could be expected - a somewhat different thing. Some airlines didn't know this and reportedly found themselves on fumes on a few occasions....

So I think I would take a leaf out of Dan Winterland's book, if I was unfortunate enough to be flying aluminium people-tubes, particularly in Espanish airspace in iffy Wx. Add allowances for at least 50 nm destination-to-alternate distance, assume worst FL, ISA+15 and engine anti-icing required - the heck with gauge errors and nearest kilogram calcs, there'd be a prudent fuel quantity at the alternate to avoid the need to declare an emergency!

About a million years ago, following the problems faced by a colleague conducting a diversion, we were ordered to declare a Mayday in any similar event.... Though not on CAT aircraft, I hasten to add. But after my wingman had a severe engine surge on take-off, returned to the aerodrome and blacked the RW after destroying the barrier, I had to divert. One would feel rather daft declaring a Mayday when well over max. landing weight, so I didn't! There then followed a few glorious minutes of aerobatics, before I landed my trusty Hunter F(GA) Mk9 at the alternate. The moral of which is that there might be SOPs, whether you're flying a Hunter or an airliner, but the commander must make the ultimate decision based upon experience and sound airmanship.

[fireflybob]

My experience of 5 years in Ryanair and a few diversions is that the alternate fuel was well padded in terms of track distance and levels etc and, of course the alternate fuel is also subject to 5% contingency.

Am not saying either way that this was the case for MAD-VLC but would be surprised if it wasn't similarly "padded".

[captplaystation]

We are getting a little bit nit-picking now discussing gauge error when we are only talking 1100kg or so, and I think it is safe to assume that no-one from the Spanish CAA works at that hour of the night. . . . therefore the arrival fuel was as noted by the crew. Aircraft would be refuelled well before any Spanish Civil Servant left bed, so lets leave it at that.

Safe to assume they landed "close" :hmm: to final reserve if they took the trouble to declare an emergency.

Well, happy to say that the crew that took me to Sevilla last week when I wanted to go to Malaga still managed to park it with a smidgin less than 1400kg after holding 40 min waiting for the CB to pass AGP.
I certainly had no complaints about their fuel choice or operational decisions :D
For sure the hysteria in the Spanish press probably resulted in a few clenched buttocks amongst the mainly Spanish pax acompanying me. Much scarier by far the 2& a half hour bus ride between flooded fields & rivers bursting their banks :uhoh:

[Dan Winterland]

Quote Mikehotel: ''Finally, Dan, is it not the case that the amount of extra fuel is almost irrelevant if that fuel is burned before the diversion commences? Had these aircraft diverted immediately after discontinuing their MAD approaches they would have had more fuel at VLC. So it comes down to airmanship backed up by guidance from up on high as to when to commence a diversion.''

Of course it is, and you answer your own question. Having the extra fuel gives you the luxury of more time to make that desision. Although I mentioned that generally the crews did a good job, I have to question the wisdom of waiting until you get to diversion fuel and then make the desision when everyone else is also diverting. In my experience, in these situatuions is best to be ahead of the queue!

[peapodpea]

I caught a flight last tuesday from Leeds Bradford to Tenerife. We were told that "due to high winds and a low pressure cell over the uk" we had to stop at Stanstead for fuel. I have only ppl rotary experience but cannot think of any logical reason for this (other than Leeds would not upload fuel). Could it be due to the diversions in Spain, so we had to have additional fuel?

[BEagle]

...and, of course the alternate fuel is also subject to 5% contingency.

Is that your company policy? My understanding is that mandatory 5% contingency only applies to trip fuel, not to fuel required for diversion to the planned alternate.

[Mikehotel152]

peapodpea

As far as I know Leeds Bradford has a short runway subject to notoriously strong crosswinds and that would have limited the amount of fuel (or passengers) they could carry for what is a long flight. They presumably faced a choice of taking fewer passengers or stopping at STN to top up the fuel.

[fireflybob]

Is that your company policy? My understanding is that mandatory 5% contingency only applies to trip fuel, not to fuel required for diversion to the planned alternate.

Beagle, am no longer with said Company so cannot comment.

Diversion fuel always used to attract contingency but maybe there has been a change which I am not aware of - anyone care to comment?

I caught a flight last tuesday from Leeds Bradford to Tenerife. We were told that "due to high winds and a low pressure cell over the uk" we had to stop at Stanstead for fuel. I have only ppl rotary experience but cannot think of any logical reason for this (other than Leeds would not upload fuel). Could it be due to the diversions in Spain, so we had to have additional fuel?

peapodpea - It would, as MikeHotel152 has alluded to, be take off weight restrictions at Leeds. Lower pressure means lower RTOW. Perversely stronger winds down the runway would help of course but knowing Leeds it was probably all crosswind!

[BOAC]

Diversion fuel always used to attract contingency but maybe there has been a change which I am not aware of - anyone care to comment?
- I always used to 'factor in' a % on div fuel (tut tut), but I'm pretty sure it is not in EUOPS.

[fireflybob]

- I always used to 'factor in' a % on div fuel (tut tut), but I'm pretty sure it is not in EUOPS.

BOAC, thanks for the update

[BEagle]

....but I'm pretty sure it is not in EUOPS.

No doubt one of the many professional pilots reading this thread will have chapter and verse about whether mandatory 5% contingency allowance is applicable to destination-to-alternate fuel planning........:hmm:

[Denti]

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.]

[lederhosen]

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.

[PhilW1981]

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?

[peapodpea]

thanks for your information.
I didn't have to get into runway lengths etc for rotary.
mystery solved for me

[BEagle]

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....

[Mikehotel152]

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?

[BEagle]

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)......

[Mikehotel152]

I see. Thanks. Food for thought.

Back to thread.

[talent]

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.

[BOAC]

Do you mean 'without approval' or 'without justification'? There is a big difference.

[talent]

Good question. Story not clear on that point.

[talent]

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.

[lederhosen]

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.

[BOAC]

'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?:D

Picking up on Lederhosen, the 'landing with extra fuel' is easily dismissed if flight time is less than PLOG.:ok:

[hetfield]

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?

[BOAC]

- 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? - should not be in the seat if you don't:eek:

[lederhosen]

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.

[fireflybob]

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.

They don't have to "seek approval" merely explain on the Voyage Report why they took extra fuel ie "1000 kgs extra due TS forecast at Madrid"

Certain Base Captains can be over zealous and I think this is where the

Pilots seem to have to explain if they land with more fuel than anticipated.

has come from. (Bear in mind that BCs also have to take the flak from their "masters")

In my opinion, any pressure comes from the fact that Ryanair pilots have no form of Union representation. As I have said before once you decide you don't like someone (maybe because they don't behave like robots) then you can make life difficult for them such as "Why did you land with 500 kg extra fuel?" Given the culture of fear within the Company this is why some may feel under pressure.

It is the industrial relations (or lack of it) that is impinging on flight safety rather than the nuts and bolts of how much fuel etc.

Of course we all know that, in law, only the Commander decides how much fuel he is going to depart with. I have been thinking about this aspect recently and would suggest that if any undue pressure is put on any individual Captain then the persons doing so may be committing an offence - I refer to Article 137:-

Endangering safety of an aircraft
137 A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

I would suggest that placing Commanders under such pressure could be construed as "reckless".

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.


lederhosen, with respect I suggest this is not the way to go - adding more "rules" as a knee jerk to one day at Madrid. Commanders must have the experience, training and good judgement to make sound decisions (if in doubt erring on the side of safety) without having to concern themselves with some half wit on the ground asking them to explain why they took a bit of extra gas!

[silverhawk]

When I resigned from dirty RYR, giving them the required 3 months notice, they insisted on retaining € 5000 for my training. Money they were required to spend on my joining by the authority, not by my lack of qualifications, therefore a legitimate overhead business expense and as such tax deduct able by them or their agency.

So I spent the last 3 months ensuring I spent at least that amount extra on my operations. I went straight to the bottom of the fuel league, by a long margin. Never once was I questioned about the enroute weather I seemed to encounter.
The money never came to my pocket, but it certainly did not go to the pr!cks that run that outfit.

The IAA need to man up and regulate rather than collect fees. This operation has only one outcome. I have some very good friends, good operators and good trainers there, but you can only squeeze so much until nothing else is left.

As always, good people, crap management.

[Con-Trail]

As always, good people, crap management.

My sentiments exactly!

[Vim Fuego]

I've found myself agreeing with all Enjoy the View's posts. Especially his last one.

[talent]

Enjoy the View says "this incident is closed and hopefully buried." Hopefully buried perhaps, but certainly not closed. According to a Spanish mate The Spanish accident investigators CAIAIC are pursuing it and plan to incoprorate the Madrid/Valencia fuel Maydays in a report they are planning to publish in a few weeks. Also he says that Mick is to be interviewed on El Gran Debate at midnight Spanish time. The online link is TELEVISION ONLINE - Ver TV online a la carta (http://www.mitele.es). Had a look but there's a political debate on at the moment. Maybe later (I think Spain is an hour ahead of the UK).

[aerobat77]

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)......


such statements are pure fun on pprune ! :ok:

[talent]

My mate suggests Room with a view's statement about the Valencia maydays appears to be based on a statement Mick issued saying that the IAA report (on the Ryanair website) was the final report into the issue. He tells me not so. As mnentioned earlier they will be incorporated into a fortchoming report into an earlier Ryanair mayday 14-05-2010. EI-DYX. Boeing 737-8AS. Aeropuerto de Valencia - 2010 - Investigación - CIAIAC - Órganos Colegiados - Ministerio de Fomento (http://www.fomento.gob.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/ORGANOS_COLEGIADOS/CIAIAC/INVESTIGACION/2010/010_2010.htm). It is imminent, I understand.

By the way am I correct in thinking that it's unusual to see an IAA report published? It doesn't appear on the IAA website so how come Ryanair published it. Does this mean that the Ryanair takeover of the IAA (the downtown office) is complete?

[Dan Winterland]

"this incident is closed and hopefully buried."

The whole point of flight safety and an effective Safety Management System is that incidents like these aren't "buried" and that they are there and available for review for others to observe and learn.

Is this the culture in RYR?

[KK Singh]

This is one of the most important point whhile planning a Flight Plan. Depending which country are you flying in, little variation may occur for fuel planning, but largely it is same as per the ICAO.
So it must be adhared.

[JW411]

It is almost as if 411A has come back from the grave.

[Adhemar]

Squawk 7600:

With the risk of being accused of having reading comprehension troubles (as you stated BOAC and Enjoy The View are suffering from, and that probably anyone that has a different point of view must be suffering from), let me share a couple of observations:

Regarding the fact that you have no specific interest (you “could not give a toss”) in Ryanair, a quick search (and thus prone to error) reveals that 42 out of your 90 highly educational posts on the forum are directly related to Ryanair, i.e. about 45 %. That is, with a bit of imagination, half of your contributions. A ‘particular interest’ that is how I would read that.

Regarding your repeated statement (you in fact repeat it so much that it starts to smell) that you are merely trying to extract lessons for all pilots in general and do not want to crucify any involved Ryanair flight crew, I observe you nevertheless do so on several occasions. The insults, allegations and condemnations are too many to list.

Regarding accusing other contributors of “playing the man”: you have been doing more than your fair bit here on that one. That is unless of course you consider calling people “ idiotic’’, “partisan” living in a “parallel universe” is playing the ball rather than the man.

Regarding your statement that Spanish ATC is a total irrelevant factor in these events (yes, events, nothing else than that). I assume that within the operations of your excellent carrier (bla bla bla) you have been operating in and out of Spain, maybe you haven’t. For those who have, and were awake while doing so, it is clear that Spanish ATC is definitely to be regarded as a significant factor on a daily basis.

With your professional experience, as you have laid out here extensively, I would expect you to show a more collegial attitude towards concerned crews, not write them off as “rookies” with “poor airmanship” and “crap decisions” and to acknowledge that - most probably- the real situation concerned crews found themselves in that night, and subsequent decisions made, are not so easily captured in the simplistic summaries of yours and some of the other contributors here. You were not there that night, you were not taking part in any investigation afterwards. You have no more objective info and facts than any of us here. It baffles me that a professional with your experience fails to acknowledge that we do not dispose of all relevant elements in order to make a judgement on the concerned crews.

Your posts, and more specific the general undertone towards Ryanair Flight crew, lead me to belief you do have an issue with Ryanair. Whilst I can appreciate that one might have a multitude of valid reasons to have a go at Ryanair I believe your contributions reveal a sincere misappraisal for your fellow colleagues, i.e. Ryanair flight crew. Allegations/assumptions such as that the concerned crews purposely waited to minimum diversion fuel in order to declare subsequently a mayday with the intention of then getting “priority in the sequence” and screwing everyone else in the air are nothing less than infantile. I would have never come up with something like that, it simply shows the views you have on your colleagues. Funny isn’t it ? The day the rookies at Ryanair get hired by BA, Air France, Emirates, Etihad or Qatar they become well respected members of the pilot community, overnight that is.

You have by now far passed your noble intentions of extracting valuable lessons for all of us. And anyway… what lessons are there for you to learn from that night? Flight planning and in flight adaptation to current wx and operational conditions seem to hold no secrets for you. So whom are you trying to educate “Captain”? (it does reads awful when you put it between quotation marks)

On a side note: careful use of the word “partisan” with the intent to insult someone is recommended: “ A partisan is a member of an irregular force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation by some kind of insurgent activity. The term can apply to the field element of resistance movements, an example of which are the civilians that opposed Nazi German rule in several countries during World War II”. (source: Wikipedia)

And to conclude: a “general consensus” on this forum exists on the “rookies” at Ryanair with “poor airmanship” and “crap decisions” … in YOUR parallel universe.

I’d love to do my sim ride with you, any day.

[fireflybob]

Just getting back onto the basic debate, I don't go too much with the argument of ascribing any "blame" to Spanish ATC.

There are plenty of places in the world where ATC is known to be sub standard - it's just part of the cards you are dealt with.

If Spanish ATC is known to be lacking in certain areas, wouldn't that be a reason for being proactive and loading more than a little fuel extra and/or perhaps allowing a little bit extra for diversion and/or making an early decision to divert?

Am not saying that it is excusable for ATC to be deficient anywhere and that we shouldn't attempt through all channels to lobby for improvement but surely it's part of the Captain's and operating company's remit to be proactive in all areas. (btw am not saying these pilots or even Ryanair, operationally, do not do so but making a general point).

[captplaystation]

So, how nicely worded was the "solicitors letter" then ? :rolleyes:

[RetiredF4]

Hear hear............oh dear:\

[TeachMe]

To this SLF, the attitude and actions of the airline that forces John R to post his apology ensures that I would never feel comfortable on that airline, even though I know they are a safe airline. To me a responsible airline, if it is that important to them, would show why the original posts were wrong and not use a big stick to prevent discourse.

[WetFeet]

I find John R's apology strange. He says he has made various claims in numerous posts......

Check his profile. He's only made TWO posts.

Is a troll at work here?

[Airclues]

WetFeet

The reason is that if you delete a post, it also reduces the post count. John has obviously (and sensibly) deleted all previous posts.

[BOAC]

I suspect that was part of the 'deal'.

[Mr Optimistic]

For the avoidance of doubt, I like Ryan Air !

[racedo]

The reason is that if you delete a post, it also reduces the post count. John has obviously (and sensibly) deleted all previous posts.

Believe that is correct.

[His dudeness]

"I like Ryan Air" .... I don´t - am I allowed to say (write) this ?

[Mr Optimistic]

Good, sue him first.

[Alexander de Meerkat]

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't like Ryanair.

[Mr Optimistic]

Phew. I'll instruct my lawyer to stand down now as there is a queue forming.

[heavy.airbourne]

They call it "Freedom of Speech"!
Living in the free world....LOL :}

[LLuCCiFeR]

The dye is cast, perhaps North Korea is a lot closer than we think? :rolleyes:

[racedo]

Hopefully now this will actually turn a corner and we can go back to having some reasonably informed debate/speculation without having to sift through the bitter, uninformed, malicious rubbish that's immediately posted as soon as the airline is mention.



:D:DCompletely agree

[transilvana]

Mr. Ryanair again.....well, what else to say....probably some psycologics in the group can explain us when he stopped taking pills and the secondat efects.

[PURPLE PITOT]

Personally i think he's an annoying gobshoyte. Can't help but admire his business acumen though.:ok:

[Piltdown Man]

Can't help but admire his business acumen though.

To date, yes. He has full control of the bottom end of the market. But has he trained a another aggressive, vocal rottweiler to take his place? Succession is a vital part of management. I don't believe has has done a good job at this if I was a business analyst I recommend a "sell" as soon as I got a whiff of his departure. Therefore I'll predict a dramatic fall in their share price when he announces his retirement. Also, I believe RYR's share price over-values its goodwill. They have little which I'm sure will be proved when they have proper competition.

[PURPLE PITOT]

Quite agree with you PM, but take one look at his bank account. Fair to say he's quite smart, and lets's be honest, it's all he cares about.

[drfaust]

thats a fair comment; it still doesnt invalidate my post there grafity. i have nothing against fr in any way shape or form; hence why its not that surprising that i make a mistake like that. you are right as the title is misleading and i do not spend all of my free time researching what other airlines do.

i do believe the point still stands that if three of your planes have to declare fuel emergencies on one night there IS more than likely something going wrong. its just what i would consider common sense. no need to get offensive though; i dont think i was.

[Dan Winterland]

Amazing. You really have to watch the documentary to put that statement in context!

[Sober Lark]

From Ryanair a clear message to think twice about what you post. Although to me it is as if a person has been permanently made stand in the corner, facing the wall as a result of some bad behavious. It is almost a violation of human rights with no time limit. Mark, there are persons who can help 'small fry' repair their internet reputation and I hope you have support from friends.

[BOAC]

Hmm - strange behaviour indeed. I wonder if he is still a First Officer with RyanAir.............. If not, finding employment as a pilot now will be a challenge.

[racedo]

From Ryanair a clear message to think twice about what you post. Although to me it is as if a person has been permanently made stand in the corner, facing the wall as a result of some bad behavious. It is almost a violation of human rights with no time limit.

What violation of human rights is it ?

Statements were false, that he has acknowledged.

He has acknowledged he will not make the FALSE claims he made again under the name used on here or any other name.

Option was to go to court and fight the case, then if lose be bound by the court ruling which would potentially be a binding injunction not to mention, discuss or publicise false allegations.

Also pick up the costs and potentially damages if lose, it is unlikely that people would be retracting what they have origianlly said on here without having discussed this with legal representation.

[Sober Lark]

Hi Racedo, Ryanair, have just put on a show of public hanging for us. Did you enjoy it?

[racedo]

Hi Racedo, Ryanair, have just put on a show of public hanging for us.

No they haven't.

They asked for people to stand by the statements they made, this applies to me as much as you.

Clearly when faced with statements they have made and asked to prove and stand by them there was some mature reflection and a request to set the record straight.

People have option of their day in court, none so far have gone down that route but no doubt some will.

[16024]

Clearly when faced with statements they have made and asked to prove and stand by them there was some mature reflection
A source (not me nor anyone known to me etc) said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I don't think they were talking about events related here.
And:
....finding employment as a pilot now will be a challenge.
You post reads as if you endorse this situation.
Why?
I'd hire someone who raises safety concerns, wouldn't you? It means that, by definition they are CONCERNED WITH SAFETY.
CHIRP and every company confidential reporting system (mandated by the authority) is devalued otherwise.

[BOAC]

You post reads as if you endorse this situation. - I really cannot see how you have come to that conclusion, but it is a free world and forum and it takes all sorts. My point was, which I think you have missed, that a pilot who admits to posting false and possibly damaging 'statements' about his employer's safety (not 'who raises safety concerns') might be looked at quite critically for further employment. You presumably think it is ok. Of course, even the genuine safety-orientated pilots can be a nuisance to some management.

[blind pew]

Boac - your last sentence should have finished ...management or authority.
(from my experience).

[BOAC]

Indeed - you are, sadly, correct.

[Teddy Robinson]

some of the things I am reading and seeing here are deeply disturbing.

[16024]

BOAC: Nope, don't think I did miss your point (it seemed unlikely), and you have reiterated it just as I inferred it.
You earlier posted that the mental pressure (to carry OFP fuel, among other things) was not good, and I think it is disingenous to flip between facts and ethos as it suits.
References to strange behaviour and it taking all sorts come across as school teacherly, and don't really encourage reasoned debate.

[wizzkid]

And you think he had any other options than make those public statements BOAC? Sometimes it's better to swallow the bitter medicine and shut the old gob as this poor chap has apparently had to do. Having read your posts for years, you come across slightly "Uppity" old boy. As for strange behavior. You are quite balanced as it does seem that you have the slightest ever chip on both shoulders. Coming off the horse every now and then and looking into the mirror is something you should think about doing.

[BOAC]

And you think he had any other options than make those public statements BOAC? - refer racedo post #503.

Everyone is at liberty to post whatever crap they like about anyone (and do). They just have to be responsible for their actions, which for some I think may be a novel concept.

[doyll]

I'm not getting involved and have no idea if Built4Speed told the truth or not. I would like to point out that the legal costs of fighting Ryanair may well exceed what he can afford to pay and therefore the reason for admitting defeat. Wouldn't be the first (nor the last) legal case won or lost because one side has way more money to spend on litigation than the other side does.

[blind pew]

Wizz kid I think BOAC has seen a lot more of the real world (as I have) than you give him credit for.
Sadly what I saw in the 60s and 70s I still see today and not just in commercial aviation.
We then blamed the poor guys who had survived the war but there is no excuse for the shysters of today bar greed and ignorance.
There are several occasions that I have bitten off my nose and many where I have kept stumm, sadly too many. Often I have had colleagues willing to sell themselves for a few shillings.....but it often comes back on them as indeed it did when my last company went bang...partly due to lack of public confidence after several fatal accidents.
When you have had close friends killed (murdered?) because of an avoidable accident then you will understand.

[JW411]

I find the attempts to justify the telling of lies and slander quite astonishing.

If you slag off any person or organisation in public then you really must be able to justify your position.

I was always taught the well known adage:

"Before opening mouth, engage brain."

Slagging-off your own employer in public surely has to qualify for some sort of Darwin award?

[BOAC]

........and would you employ him?

[JW411]

Absolutely not. There is obviously something fundamentally wrong with his decision-making process. I would imagine that his future career in aviation is extremely limited.

It is indeed a very small world.

[Safety Concerns]

Slagging-off your own employer in public surely has to qualify for some sort of Darwin award?

could some of you be a bit clearer on your position.

Untruths etc. no issues but........

what if your employer is "unsafe" or has a bad safety culture or, or, or. Isn't it our duty to report in whichever manner we see fit?

or are some of you suggesting that you should turn a blind eye if it is the hand that feeds that is involved?

[hval]

Racedo, BOAC and JW411,

I do not know if untruths were told or not. The fact that persons have been forced to retract their statements and "admit" their lies does not mean they lied.

One thing it does mean is that Ryanair have a lot more money than them.

[BOAC]

Quite right, hval. However, since we have no way of reviewing the posts by the two posters, that is immaterial. It was established that this particular thread was incorrect and the allegations made wrong.

A suitable point to close it, and perhaps the topic itself? As far as I am concerned it is over - bar the hearing.

[racedo]

I do not know if untruths were told or not. The fact that persons have been forced to retract their statements and "admit" their lies does not mean they lied.

One thing it does mean is that Ryanair have a lot more money than them.

Unfortunately there are quite a few people (including on here) who detest Ryanair. They will believe anything negative irrespective of the source.

Even when it is unproven or impossible to have occurred they will still keep up an irrational view that as its Ryanair then it must be true.

If as some are suggesting that some of the people are really lying now to keep lawyers happy then at what point in time will you know truth is being told ?

[Hangar6]

Could it be TRUE Lies being told by a CEO in court? CEO of FR ? A truly
Scurrilous thought?

[mm43]

"There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics" - Eliza Gutch (1891).

So "statistically" those with the deepest pockets will prevail, and the 'fib' or 'downright lie' will be expunged and/or bankrupted by the power/wealth of "statistics".

What happened to "truth"?

[Hangar6]

Excellent post , the truth and MOL are infrequent bedfellows according to one judge in a documented comment about his statements on record in that case
Still his lawyers are busy getting rich and sure winning at all
Cost is the aim

[EngineOut]

It takes about 10 minutes of human factors studies to come to the conclusion if a certain organizational culture contributes to safety or not. Or if one is too lazy to study, some common sense is usually adequate.

As a passenger, I won't do business with a company that never admits to be at fault. Everyone makes mistakes now and then. Safety culture is about admitting these faults and taking measures so they won't happen again.

[16024]

Last 4 posts: Hurrah!
BOAC: NO! That has NOT been established.