4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time

[Icelanta]

4 Ryanair aircraft had to declare a fuel emergency last night at VLC on diversion from a thunderstorm struck MAD.
This is a proof that Minimum fuel policies are a safety risk that no PIC should accept. period.

[BOAC]

If the TS were forecast at MAD then the Captains concerned most probably did not uplift enough fuel. Not the company's fault! Minimum fuel has and always will be the Captain's decision (USA excluded, of course).

[DooblerChina]

Was the thunderstorm forecast? Did other aircraft divert or just Ryanair? Did they land safely?

[coltrane]

For the sake of completeness, it wasn't only Ryanair guys declaring fuel emergencies...

[Callsign Kilo]

1) MAD is a large airport with multiple arrivals. What did everyone else do?
Can you place an expected delay with such a weather phenomenon? Were there cases of some traffic arriving and departing prior to the Ryanair's approach time?

2) Under EU Ops for transient conditions such as TEMPO TS etc is there a requirement to take account for planning purposes? What was the TAF for LEMD yesterday?

3) So if you do take extra fuel, how much? Add the Madrid equation plus the weather then the traffic and that's anyone's guess?

4) Ryanair pilots would not be criticised for taking extra fuel to MAD in the event of such weather. Equally I doubt they would be criticised for not, considering IF the weather was localised and forecasted (if it was?) as a PROB30 or PROB40. However I would say that the vast majority, if not all, would

5) The Mayday follows regulatory requirements in the event that you will land with less than your final reserve. Again no criticism.

6) I'm doubting VLC was the first alternate on the OFP and I can't account for the reasons why the crews decided to divert here? There must have been a good one!

7) Ryanair crews don't fly around on fumes and I'm expecting yesterday to not have been something as straight forward as just that.

I reckon this is another case of smearing Ryanair pilots as cowboys. If it is, kindly do one.

[DutchExpat]

Our company rather has us taking min fuel on regular basis as the cost saving far outweighs the odd diversion These guys took the gamble saw the Wx and diverted don't see the big issue here?

[pilotsince99]

Minimum fuel still has a safety margin build in, so no safety risk. It is up to the captain to take more. LVP's, bad weather, Olympic delays...etc. are good reasons. I take more fuel when needed, but quite often take flight plan fuel if I don't foresee any major delays. If you have landing assured at your destination you could use all your alternate fuel for holding, gives you quite often an extra 20-25 mins.

If flight plan fuel would be 'unsafe' the authorities wouldn't allow it.

[MPH]

They might have taken extra fuel, but knowing MAD/ATCO they probably did not facilitate their arrival and maybe could have been overwhelmed? I would imaginge that VLC is an alternate as, maybe VLL or even ZAG. But, who knows, I was not there and am sure the lads from FR are more than capable. That 4 A/C found themselves in this situation is, because 4 A/C FR where flying into MAD that day and unfornuately found themselves with the WX not collaborating. The metar had 30-40 prob. which, would indicate that they did/should/could have taken that extra fuel. That these flights ended up in an emercency overhead their alternate is due to a sequence of factors. Once again, I am sure the SAIR´s/captains report and the subsequent investigation will reveal what actualy happened.:)

[BOAC]

It is also always worth remembering that if you KNOW several (company) aircraft will be arriving at a dodgy destination together, extra fuel is a good idea.

[blind pew]

No such thing as an assured landing - had heathrow close with both runways blocked - two in incidents within half an hour....daytime in good weather.
Burning alternate fuel at your destination always seemed a foolish gamble.

[SpamCanDriver]

I agree there is no such thing as an assured landing...

But what is wrong with burning your alternate fuel @ your destination, if the weather is fine and its not mega busy?

If you divert to your alternate you will get there with less fuel and whats to stop that runway getting blocked?????

At least if you stay @ your destination you have more fuel to play around with if anything happens
Thats just my opinion anyway...

[pilotsince99]

Blind pew,

What if someone used Heathrow as an alternate on your day. Would he be classed as foolish? As spamcandriver puts it, what if someone would block the runway at your alternate, just when you are diverting to it.

You never have a definite landing assured. But if you have been given an ETA and weather conditions are good than I don't see any objection of burning your alternate fuel at your destination.

[binzer]

Spamcandriver


At last a man who see's sense. These guys who think using div fuel(commit to stay) can't see the tree's for the woods. The amount of guys I have spoke to about this just don't get it. Better to be at a field with 2 runways than a diversion field with min fuel.

They only think of the part A and protecting their licenses(what from I don't know).

Bring back decision making, I think :}

[BOAC]

What have 'assured landings' and burning fuel at dest got to do with this thread?:ugh:

[GlueBall]

No such thing as an assured landing - had heathrow close with both runways blocked - two in incidents within half an hour....daytime in good weather. Burning alternate fuel at your destination always seemed a foolish gamble.

You're piling one inference atop another for planing purposes. Are you scared?

"In daytime in good weather" as you say. . . during your emergency, (declaring MAYDAY), how much fuel would you need to fly 23 nautical miles for a straight-in visual to LGW or LTN...? :{

[Callsign Kilo]

100% agree Tillingdale, certain base captains wish to create their own version of part A. Using the words 'safety' 'legally obliged as the aircraft commander' or God forbid 'airmanship' will leave them with no confusion. I know what part A says Mr bc, do you? There seems to a widely different set of opinions depending on the base in question. I wouldn't tar them all with the same brush.

binzer

it's all very well burning into your reserve in order to commit to a nice destination with a few big runways and nice approach aids, however in the case of MAD with a fecking great big TS overhead, traffic arriving from all points of the compass, over 50% of the r/t in Spanish and possibly some of the worst controlling in Europe then everything points to plan B. I believe the first and second alternates for MAD (as per FR ops) are Valladolid and Zaragoza.

[paidworker]

I was speaking to friends on one of the diverted flights ,one is a Twotter pilot and the other a glider..WX was apparrently pretty rotten ,, felt like him to windshear and all sorts on short final before go around ( I dropped in today to see if any incident had been reported based on his account of how hairy the approach got ) . They held for about 30 minutes and legged it for Valencia eventually. Know its beside the point in terms of fuel and whatever but thought i would post.

[fantom]

But what is wrong with burning your alternate fuel @ your destination, if the weather is fine and its not mega busy?



Err...how about it being illegal and you might go to jail?

[Agaricus bisporus]

Sad lack of airmanship is the only reason I can see for this. A prob 30/40 TS in Spain in July should have all the alarm bells ringing for all the good reasons (additional hazards) others have given in that environment.

And couple that with the seldom acknowledged potential for trouble where a single runway airport (and often a sleepy one) is designated as diversion for a major 3/4 runway international hub and I have to say I'm not the least bit surprised. (take Ibiza as diversion for Palma or Reus for Barcelona as other traps for the unwary. It only takes a security scare or an incident that temporarily drops the RFF to a low level to shut the place down altogether in fine weather, let alone in TS)

My company uses Valencia as a primary diversion for Madrid and I never like the idea much. Madrid struggles to cope with its traffic - what chance does Valencia or worse Zaragosa stand if all that gets suddenly dumped on them? The people who divert early are the ones who stay comfortable in that situation, the chancers get to have a sweaty time of it. I suggest that is purely self-inflicted.

At risk of blaspheming in this crazy accountant-run industry, AIRMANSHIP!

[VJW]

Callsign just for info VLC IS the first alternate from Madrid after 2000z each day. Prior to this time it is VLD.

[sarah737]

I was there.
The weather was bad, the controllers wern't of any help, BUT it was so pedictable.
You need 15-20 min extra anyhow at that time and with the forecast it was clear you needed another 45min for weather.
I was amazed when I heard (amongst others) a KLM arriving on the approach frequency with 5 (yes 5 min) of extra fuel... Do you continue to your destination with 5 min extra when the ATIS says "heavy TS overhead, airport closed"???
People started diverting to ALC and VLC. After a while VLC was not available anymore because it was saturated. People had to divert as far as BCN.
When the airport reopened there was a nice tailwind causing some go arounds, so they changed runways.
We held for 1 hour and landed.

[CF09]

Fantom

Sorry, your talking utter rubbish.

Committing to land at your destination (with 'landing assured') is perfectly legal, provided you land with final reserve fuel. It's makes perfect common sense to most and is in most airlines part A and as such is available to pilots as part of their inflight fuel planning options.

BTW Runways being blocked etc etc has nothing to to with the definition of 'landing assured' - unless, of course it was blocked already...

[bakutteh]

I was speaking to friends on one of the diverted flights ,one is a Twotter pilot and the other a glider..WX was apparrently pretty rotten ,, felt like him to windshear and all sorts on short final before go around ( I dropped in today to see if any incident had been reported based on his account of how hairy the approach got ) . They held for about 30 minutes and legged it for Valencia eventually. Know its beside the point in terms of fuel and whatever but thought i would post.


If what paidworker wrote is correct, it is perfectly legit and professionally kosher. Due to the large numbers of diversions and less than perfect ATC coordination, these FR pilots may have had to play safe and declared minimum fuel. I don't think they had declared " emergency " fuel condition which would have entailed MAYDAY calls. A lousy day it was; in hindsight, they should have taken more fuel, yada, yada, yada...that's Monday morning quarterback stuff. Those pilots will certainly learn from this episode.

Bravo, sarah737 good on you! Those FR pilots would certainly wish that you get to be their chief / management pilot.

[kick the tires]

This really is a no brainer.

MAD controllers really are the worst in Europe. Everyone knows that.

MAD PLOG - ALWAYS add 300kgs. Reason - crap ATC.

Spain at its best, not!

[Zoyberg]

Keep it simple...CBs half an hour minimum extra...Mad on a good day half an hour extra on top of that!

[ranklein]

Can anyone direct me to the JAR's "Committed to stay" rule?

Thanks!

[fly4bux777]

Who says they were low on gas? The PIC can declare min/emer fuel anytime he wants, a long ways away from the airport.

Unless you stick your head in the cockpit and check the gas gauge you won't really know. If they declared emer fuel, and burnt into the minimum fuel required, they'll get nailed, as the emer fuel call generates reports, and scrutiny.

The Ryan Air Capt's might be more aggressive than others and simply assured traffic priority once it appeared approach control was having a hard time.

[gerago]

Did they declare minimum fuel advisory or the full blown fuel emergency Mayday? Two different situations altogether!

[captjns]

Icelanta opines....This is a proof that Minimum fuel policies are a safety risk that no PIC should accept. period.

It's not a Company problem.... it's a PIC problem that puts company fuel policies before operational needs. One can choose to divert before they reach "Bingo Fuel" too.

[Loose rivets]

We see a lot on these threads about a pilot's legal culpability. Prison sentences are handed out to some who annoy some Mediterranean judges. Well, when the big one happens due to low fuel - and it will - in this united Europe of ours, perhaps the long arm of litigation should reach out to the :mad: who 'ordered' the departure fuel while sitting on their fat backsides in some office back at the departure points.

Undue pressure on the captain. Career threats. Plain, "If you don't like it, get another job" threats. It's no uses saying the young skipper should have the balls to resist. Real life is not like that.

[Dan Winterland]

In order of importance, there's commercial sense, common sense and then airmanship.

[Capn Bloggs]

The Ryan Air Capt's might be more aggressive than others and simply assured traffic priority once it appeared approach control was having a hard time.
I'll try that next time I get held in a queue due to weather...

[ranklein]

Hey Binzer,

I'm looking for the JAR "committed to stay".
Can you help..?

Thanks!

[Boeingflyer]

It is for sure not god if an FR capt need to carry exstra fuel,he will get to the bottom of the fuel leage competetion and a serius talk with his base commander why hé is in the bottom of the list and that hé must dó better next time...
Imagine what kind of pressure this fuel leage competetion gives to the capt. !!
Dó you realy think hé Will take exstra fuel in case of bad weather ? NO he dont whant to be on the bottom of the fuel leage competetion !!!

I think this kind of competetin only exsist in Ryanair.. Amature Company !!

[Giggey]

Heard rumors about one of the Ryanair landed in VLC with 450kgs left!!!

Scaaary..

[172_driver]

..and at the end those who cheat the most win the fuel league anyway

[fireflybob]

Fuel league is a joke!

When I was with FR (happily not now!) always said I'd rather be at the bottom of the league having made all the right operational fuel decisions.

Bear in mind the Company is run under a culture of fear (from the man at the top) and some of the workforce have bought into the principal of "We were only following orders".

If ever there was a reason for unionisation this issue must surely be it.

IMHO it's just a matter of time before there is a big bang.

[binzer]

C/s kilo

Think it was a bit of thread drift. I would only use my diversion fuel if due to airport congestion, and a so called agreement from the destination atc about estimated landing times. It's not just my decision.

However sometimes you just got to make a decision. Early European summers
Bloody t/s everywhere,

[coopervane]

In my day the regs said trip fuel allowing for upper winds and weather etc plus diversion fuel plus 30 minutes holding. Extra fuel was carried within the available weight limit at the discretion if the Captain. A bit for inaccuracies in weather predictions and a bit for mum !!
If you did divert and had used your holding fuel, then when you were making your approach there wasn't a great deal left in the tanks.
The decision to divert should always be made as early as possible and once the decision has been made go straight to the alternate. Never turn back and better to hold at the alternate than wait at the original destination in the hope things may get better. May not be an airlines way of priority but will sure be the safer option.
Take it from me. I have experienced this for real.
Coops

[Aldente]

Once again, I am sure the SAIR´s/captains report and the subsequent investigation will reveal what actualy happened.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Not if the IAA are involved they won't.......

:ugh:

[shaun ryder]

7) Ryanair crews don't fly around on fumes and I'm expecting yesterday to not have been something as straight forward as just that.


Seems like four of them probably were?

I reckon this is another case of smearing Ryanair pilots as cowboys. If it is, kindly do one.

I dont think so, but you have to question WHY 4 of their aircraft got into the situation where they were all flying with less than final reserve fuel? You have to wonder.

[aerobat]

Lets be clear about Ryanair fuel policy. On a non tankering sector if conditions are good we are expected to uplift minimum legal fuel and up to an extra 300kg. However we can take as much as we like but have to justify why on the voyage report otherwise we get a snotty letter.
In ten years as a Captain never once have my ( many ) extra uplifts been queried.

[sheetal]

Ryanair crews don't fly around on fumes and I'm expecting yesterday to not have been something as straight forward as just that.

[transilvana]

Problem is:

RyanAir Su cks. Rest is nosense

4 aircrafts is too much, I´ve seen too many of these declaring fuel emergency everywhere in europe, it looks standard procedure, even with Weather CAVOK and nice wind enroute but as you can not get your optimal FL you burn those extra 300kg and more.

Well guys, if you fly in a shi tty company you get shi tty procedures, someday you will have an accident and your shi tty and paranoic boss will directly blame you and it would be your fault.

Don´t come now and defend the company, I will be very happy if someday the company cease operations, probably I will get the biggest hangover in my life

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Before I start Ryanair bashing ;) I'd be interested to know where these 4 aircraft departed from and if they could actually have carried anymore gas.

[BALLSOUT]

Before I start Ryanair bashing I'd be interested to know where these 4 aircraft departed from and if they could actually have carried anymore gas.
Spain is about slap bang in the middle of the Ryanair route network so can't see it would ever be a problem to carry extra fuel to MAD on any of their flights.
I am not here to defend the company but I have been a captain in Ryanair for many years. I have always carried extra fuel when ever I have seen fit and never had any come back. You make your fuel decision and write it up on the voyage report, the same as I have always done in any company I have flown for. Not a problem!

[captplaystation]

Have to agree with aerobat & BALLSOUT, in my 6 years there I was never taken to task for carrying extra fuel, which I could & always did justify by a note on the voyage report, but. . . . . I did see quite a few colleagues (as we sometimes flew 2xCapt's together) who seemed to think it was somehow going to elevate their status if they took min & not min+300, or thought that 500 extra was fine arriving in the Med with TS forecast at destination + Alt 1 & 2.

Unfortunately, some Base Capts (thinking a large :hmm: UK base here particularly) have personal history of arriving on fumes, &, think that others should accept the same risk & lack of professionalism that they are comfortable with. Lets face it, anyone who has in the past criticised people for ARRIVING with too much fuel, really doesn't get it . . . . so, you should refuse short-cuts & select F40 at 20nm just to keep the village-idiot happy ?
:D

Main cause of concern to me is the percentage of Commanders with no prior experience in other companies, who respect/adhere to the exhortations of aforesaid Base Lackeys (and it certainly used to be only a few bad eggs carrying this onerous reputation, the majority seemed to accept common-sense decisions from the "troops") ) without thinking it through for themselves. There were unfortunately a few terminally indoctrinated individuals who blindly followed the company edicts, this should serve as a wake up call to them that the buck stops with them & that their list of priorities should read 1- Safety 2- Legality 3- Commercial/Company perceived (or real) pressure, & not the inverse.

[Depone]

Not wishing to put a stop to what is quite a good story, but has anyone seen any evidence whatsoever that this happened, except the hearsay from the OP?

And, assuming that it did happen, which given the wx and FR's fuel policy seems feasible, is it not likely that many other aircraft diverted at the same time? If so, what makes you think would have landed with much more in their tanks?

That is, of course, if you're willing to look at this with an open mind.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

You can always carry more gas if the weather is extremely borderline. Just make a fuelstop somewhere or leave load behind. That is what companies do who are serious about flight safety.

A few CBs is hardly borderline. :rolleyes:

Spain is about slap bang in the middle of the Ryanair route network so can't see it would ever be a problem to carry extra fuel to MAD on any of their flights.

You've heard of take off weight limits I hope?!

[Tu.114]

One question for the sake of those not rated on 737:

A maximum extra of 300 or 500kg has been mentioned. Just for better understanding - how many minutes would that amount to?

[RAT 5]

TS's in Spain in Summer. How accurate can a forecast be? As a glider pilots in mountains, i.e. been there, done that, been scared, I always feel extremely wary of TS's. If the conditions are there for possible CB's how can a computer model decide, 20hrs in advance, that the chance is only for SCT or FEW CB's, and how can they say the PROB is only XYZ% that they'll be TEMPO. Fuel is your only insurance and it is way cheaper than diversion, hotels, cancelled flights etc. Again, just after a min'fuel campaign I was very hard pushed to follow my instincts based on the TAF. Had to divert due TS, wind shear, flooded rwy, but other a/c landed 40mins later. Our 18hr day ended back at base at 06.00, 7 hours late for us and pax, all for the lack of 45mins fuel that gut instinct wanted. Trouble was all ALTN's were ok and destination had PROB 30 TEMPO SCT CB's 3000'. Company guidelines just issued were no extra extra fuel, so it was the usual 10mins. Not enough. The following morning flight was cancelled, but who cares.
Remember the BY B757 that went on a Cook's tour of NE Spain trying to land and eventually was committed to GRO and slid off the rwy in heavy rain. If I remember he didn't have too much extra motion lotion. I'm sure there are 1000's of stories in USA (FLorida in summer) and SE Asia.

[captplaystation]

RAT5, it was a bit more serious than slid off the RW, if you look up the report it will indeed confirm that the forecast for GRO and the surrounding area "may" have demanded a litle more imagination in the departure fuel chosen. 100% agreed, a bit of extra gas & it would likely have ended with a safe diversion to BCN. But, company culture & previous fast-jet experience may have won the day in that decision methinks.

TU114, around 2000-2200kg/hr holding/transiting at low to medium level, so 500=15min at best, 300. . . .barely enough for a procedural appr.

Any diversion I have ever made (unless it was really right next door) has always consumed the best part of a ton minimum, hence my personal mantra of always planning to land with 2000kg min &/or making a decision that will stick before I reach that figure.
I am never comfortable being airborne with less than 1 hr to flameout. . . . (having not been a fighter jock in a former life) feel free to call me a wuss if you like, but I do have 189+ others who may not share my bravado if I made that choice.

[antonov09]

300kg endurance wise is roughly 8 minutes.

Studi: As Spandex said a few CBs is hardly borderline. If you PM me I can explain to you how to use the weather radar.

[BOAC]

If you PM me I can explain to you how to use the weather radar - yes please - we'd all be interested in how you use it to decide fuel uplift. Yes, even after 47 years at piloting it is posts like your that show me I still have stuff to learn.:ugh:

[JW411]

Sarah 737 (who was actually there) tells us in Post #23 that KLM (and others) turned up at Madrid with only 5 minutes of extra fuel. Once the usual unpromising hysterics among you have finished venting your spleens about Ryanair, are we to assume that you will turn your attention to the fuel planning policies of KLM (and others)?

I look forward to receiving your wisdom.

[Tu.114]

Captplaystation and Antonov9,

thank You for the explanation - so one might say that 100kgs of extra will equal 3 minutes.

Looking at FRs mentioned regulations with this in mind and obviously not knowing the internal workings of this company, I am under the impression that 15 minutes is an acceptable amount if nothing untoward is expected, but in case of snow or CBs there likely will be many reports written.

So another question - most companies (mine included) will invite the Commander to take as little extra fuel as he deems justifiable, but that mentioned fuel league seems to be one step beyond a mere invitation. Are there prizes to be won, or is only an invitation for self-supplied tea and biscuits at stake?

[antonov09]

I dont use the weather radar to decide fuel uplift(funnily enough). I usually use a weather radar to fly upwind of a CB,if Im below 20000ft I usually like to stay at least 10 miles. I usually use a combination of Metars TAFs and an applicable Sig Weather chart for fuel uplift.


I hope that clarifies things for you.

[BOAC]

So, please explain what relevance that has to this thread which is about fuel uplift?

[BOAC]

JW - there is nothing actually WRONG in arriving anywhere with only '5 minutes extra'- it is what you do when you get there that matters. I would assume from what I have read here that there was no sensible option of burning div fuel over MAD, so as was always my policy in those situations - divert early and get there with a bit of 'extra'.

[JW411]

BOAC:

Exactly so; but all we know is that the originator of this thread made the dramatic statement that four Ryanair aircraft declared "fuel emergency" at the same time.

As you and I know very well there is no such thing (in Europe anyway) as declaring a fuel emergency. It's a Mayday call.

My suspicion is that four Ryanair aircraft bowled into Madrid, which had Cb activity in the area. There is nothing surprising about that for they have a lot of flights into Madrid. The aircraft held until they reached minimum diversion fuel and then diverted to Valencia. On arrival, it would not be remiss to tell ATC that you are on minimum diversion fuel.

They were not the only aircraft diverting. It doesn't matter if you hold for five minutes or hold for an hour, when you reach minimum diversion fuel then you had better go.

I have arrived at Micke intersection on Long Island inbound to JFK in similar weather conditions and been given an estimated 45 minute delay but that was only an estimate. It was often better to dive into Bradley and refuel because you could fly around in circles for 45 minutes at Micke and then still divert.

I very much doubt that, even on a really good day, Madrid ATC would have any idea of what was actually going on and would be quite incapable of producing a credible EAT.

In summary, we have absolutely no evidence so far that any Ryanair aircraft declared a Mayday.

It is equally possible that all four Ryanair aircraft arrived at Madrid with plenty of fuel and then held until they got down to minimum diversion fuel.

Likewise, it is perfectly acceptable for KLM (and others) to turn up with just five minutes more fuel than required.

Did anyone actually have to call Mayday? I doubt it.

I just want to get some balance into the discussion.

[fireflybob]

In all my 5 years with Ryanair I never had any excess fuel questioned so long as you stated the reason on the Voyage Report (and believe me if I thought extra was necessary then I took it!).

The issue seems to revolve around their Captains who have only ever flown for Ryanair from the cradle in combination with (a few) overzealous Base Captains putting them under pressure.

I gather the Base Captains are paid extra based on either on time performance or "fuel performance" (ie for the base aircraft/crews) and the BCs can opt for whichever they prefer.

This fact might explain why certain BCs put Captains under pressure to carry PLOG fuel. One has, of course, to question whether this method of paying BCs extra is really in the interests of flight safety.

If I was put under pressure in this way I would be inclined to file an SAIR (aka MOR) and also keep personal records (and details of witnesses) to be used in the event of employment issues.

[BOAC]

I just want to get some balance into the discussion. - rightly so, and I did not mean to tread on that.

[JW411]

fireflybob:

I understand exactly what you are saying but, by the same token, who was pressurising the KLM captain (and others) who were in the same situation?

In other other words, is the problem industry-wide?

I have to say that no one in my long flying career ever questioned my fuel planning.

Incidentally, I once worked for a US Part 121 carrier that used to publish monthly fuel-league figures. There was absolutely no money involved nor were there career-ending posibilities.

I was always in the top four but I never made it past 2nd. Old Flash was, as often as not, in 1st place and no matter how many beers I bought him, I was never able to learn his secret!

[dlcmdrx]

Top secret: Tres aviones de Ryanair solicitan aterrizaje de emergencia por falta de combustible | Intereconomía | 817649 (http://www.intereconomia.com/video/telediario-intereconomia/top-secret-tres-aviones-ryanair-solicitan-aterrizaje-emergencia-por-f)

I could put the report of a RYR that landed in Vlc some time ago with fumes on the fuel lines instead of fuel but im not gonna even bother.

[captplaystation]

Why ? if you are going to bad-mouth them it is surely more convincing to do it with the proof there to refute any accusations we may make of unjustified slander. Or is it also just that "an accusation" ?

The videoclip you have posted does indeed seem to have two of Mikeys finest declaring a "Mayday", so, it seems to support the OP's allegation. Wonder where the TV company got the recordings from. . . . . the "Air Nostrum/Iberia Supporters Club" ? ? aka Madrid/Valencia ATC ?

I thought from some very distant memory that there was legislation relating to the release of these tapes, particularly when an "incident" is concerned (& declaring a Mayday is an incident in my book) or the "Spotters" were making recordings.

Or perhaps a bit of good old fashioned partisan protectionism has supplanted correct protocol.
Have KLM's calls being released, or didn't they bother as they "hoped" to land with final reserve fuel.
Anyways, the 2 Ryanairs sounded (at that moment) very calm about declaring a Mayday, so maybe they ARE making a habit of it ? :rolleyes:

[Dusthog]

On an average leg on a short haul flight, the extra fuel carried does not make any difference. Ask ATC for a shortcut or make a good TOD so you don´t have to use speed brakes is a better way to save fuel.

[coltrane]

Top secret: Tres aviones de Ryanair solicitan aterrizaje de emergencia por falta de combustible | Intereconomía | 817649

You got to love the spanish media.. What a surprise they didn't mention the Iberia, Air europa and Vueling inbound VLC that also declared a fuel emergency..:ugh:

[framer]

What sort of fuel figures do Ryanair pilots routinely arrive overhead with?
Do they arrive with less than 2T on a nice day?
I will top it up to 2.5T overhead destination if it comes out as less than that.
I started doing that after one flight where a failure caused loss of Hyd A while on descent and we had control difficulties and landed with 1000kg instead of the 3000kg we were initially showing overhead. The weather was perfect that day.

[captplaystation]

4yrs ago final reserve fuel was 1100kg, and some alternates had a calculated burn of 900 odd, so you could (if you took min fuel & had unfavorable winds/FL allocated) arr at Dest with less than 2tons.

I could usually find an "excuse" not to.

[Callsign Kilo]

Spanish media reporting on Ryanair through leaked ATC tapes. Probably less effort put into the Iberia A340 that went off the end of the runway at Quito and the Air Europa 738 that did something similar at Lanzarote.

This thread is yet another example of people secretly hoping for two poor bastards sitting up at the pointy end of a Ryanair 737 to seriously **** up. Correct me if I'm wrong?

[flying headbutt]

There was actually something else in the mix. Another diverting aircraft I believe a LAN Chile had declared an engine failure during his diversion to VLC. On arriving at VLC, ATC were handing out an extra 30+ minutes holding to arriving diverting aircraft. ATC was chaotic and a few aircraft looked at what was going on and continued down the coast to ALC where things were a lot quieter.

[BobnSpike]

Policy at my company is to declare "minimum fuel" if landing is anticipated with minimum reserve fuel aboard and to declare an emergency if landing will be at 30 minutes or less fuel remaining.

I have held until reaching "min fuel" (plus personal extra) then have encountered delays in the subsequent divert. I have also bailed out early and arrived at the alternate with an abundance of remaining fuel. I have never gone to the point of declaring a fuel emergency but have gone into the region between min and emergency fuel.

You can arrive at the holding pattern with 10000 extra, then leave the hold for the alternate at min fuel. Is it more prudent to wait out weather in a holding pattern and avoid a (costly) divert or to divert now and avoid the rush later?

Answer: it depends.

Some a quick to jump on the Ryanair guys, but in the end it is only the crew who make the decisions.

Gotta love the peanut gallery.

[VJW]

They always fail when starved of fuel

[subsonicsubic]

Terrible that an ATPL Captain feels compelled to comply with unsafe scenarios while I whisk my 3 pax safely on their way with max fuel (depending on shopping). I should not feel safer when I jump off the Airbus and into my Cessna. Sadly I do. :(

[flying headbutt]

I didn t say that the engine failed due to a divert. I was simply saying that it was an added factor for ATC to deal with in an already complicated situation with lots of aircraft diverting at the same time and at least a couple of Mayday calls thrown in for good measure. Like I said, diverting aircraft were being given 30+ minute EATs at VLC.

[Pub User]

Sorry about the slow response:

I gather the Base Captains are paid extra based on either on time performance or "fuel performance" (ie for the base aircraft/crews) and the BCs can opt for whichever they prefer.

This fact might explain why certain BCs put Captains under pressure to carry PLOG fuel. One has, of course, to question whether this method of paying BCs extra is really in the interests of flight safety.

Does one really have to question this, or is it not blatantly obvious?

This airline is living right on the edge of sensibility when it comes to safety. My own policy of not using it, nor allowing my family to do so, becomes stronger almost every time I peruse the pages of PPrune.

[antonov09]

I think you will find statistics wise FR have a very good safety record. One hull loss which was a double engine failure in Rome.

When I was in FR we nearly always landed between 3 and 3.2 tonnes. I think the lowest I ever landed was 2.2 tonnes in my time there.

I think people are losing sight of the fact that FR were not the only aircraft diverting from Madrid that night.

[Admiral346]

Reading about a "fuel league", where, if I understand correctly, the guy with the least extra spent gets to be number one is a first for me.
Having flown for 15 years now, I never even heard of anything such contrary towards flight safety!
That really shocks me; I am speechless!
And it seems some find pleasure being up top in that league... (or having been).

I took an hours worth of extra to MUC today, the forecast being prop 40 +TSRA, and had 3 similas alternates.

I landed with all of it in my tanks, and I believe I did my PAX, myself, and my company a favor taking the fuel load.

[A4]

Just a thought. The South American aircraft that diverted and allegedly suffered an engine failure - what type? A340/B747 i.e. 4 holer or B777/A330. Would ATC still give priority to a 4 holer down to 3 over aircraft declaring fuel emergency? Genuine question - do ATC have definitive guidance on this?

[BALLSOUT]

You've heard of take off weight limits I hope?!
L S M. Of course I have but if you know the 800 you will know it would have to be a fairly restrictive runway to restrict it to that degree on a two hour flight.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Ballsout, forgive me for my tongue in cheekiness but that was the reason I asked.

[framer]

Thanks Captainplaystation.
It seems to me that the flight planners will normally have you there with an ok amount and that if the Captain decides on a bit more that they are not questioned about it , but do have to write the reason for it.
So the only problem will be with Captains who make poor decisions at the flight planning stages and First Officers who don't have the spine to say " actually I had a slightly higher figure in my head because of XYZ"
I am not saying that the crews of the four jets concerned made poor decisions, they all landed ok and sometimes things do get a fraction finer than you want due circumstance.

[JW411]

ADMIRAL346:

Were you referring to my comment about fuel leagues? If so, perhaps I should explain that what we were interested in were the actual fuel BURNS for example from LGW to JFK and not in how little fuel was loaded or how much fuel we landed with.

Personally, I took an interest in seeing how efficiently I was operating the aircraft and I cannot see what is wrong with that.

[BOAC]

We could (and no doubt will........) argue for days of the value of 'fuel league tables'. I flew with a Captain in DanAir who had a database of burns for each sector he flew and thought this was 'useful', but had no record of ZFW, wind or route flown.

FL tables are only as useful as the Al Gore rhythms used - in my time, BA's 'favoured' the managers (funny old thing) who flew more out and backs late am into a quietish base on return, and penalised the working class who got up at oh-***-awful in forrin parts and flew into a CatIII base on a regular basis. Pretty well meaningless.

[Piltdown Man]

More fuel only means extended holding and a greater choice of in-flight planned destination alternates. It may increase your chances of landing at your planned destination, only because you can hold for longer than those on "minimum fuel". Where the 'extra' safety comes from is a mystery, all the time we have control over where we point the aircraft and up to the minute information about airfield weather, it is not compromised.

More fuel also increases your landing speeds, LDR, brake temperatures on arrival plus en-route fuel burn. Over the last ten years I've been flying on our minimum fuel policy and I've not had to divert nor arrived on minimum holding fuel. I've been within minutes of doing so...

Whether the company want you to divert or not is a different matter. They do this by the way the way they write their policies on carrying additional fuel. My company encourage me to fly with the barest minimum fuel, but only ask me to tick a box if I want more. But when faced with pure grot, I'll give then a call (their phone). They'll use their "skill and judgement" and say how much extra they want me to carry want OR and this is a big "or", they'll ask you to go and divert if you have to. And if during this call, I want more fuel, then I'll be given it. Even if that means we off-load passengers. Either way they'll pay me and look after the passengers whatever the outcome.

What is really important is that as soon as it appears you'll be landing with less than 30 minutes (of whatever your prescribed minimum) of fuel, you declare an emergency (aka "mayday"). If the RYR guys were in that position, then they did their jobs.

[transilvana]

About 2-3 years ago there was an issue with a RYR flight in Barcelona BCN, they arrived with less than minimum fuel and requested to shoot APP and land whilst other aircrafts were on APP following the normal waiting pattern to land.

One IBERIA captain told them on frecuency that if they wanted to land first they should declare minimum fuel and there would be no problem for others to let them go down first.

The RYR diverted to Gerona GRO.

[framer]

The idea of ringing someone else if I want more fuel doesn't sit well with me.
If they want to choose the fuel load they can fly the flight.

[Piltdown Man]

The idea of ringing someone else if I want more fuel doesn't sit well with me.

I don't think that was said. What I said was "But when faced with pure grot, I'll give then a call" which means just that. It's their train set and if THEY want me to carry more fuel, then they'll say so. Otherwise, as usual, I'll make my own mind up. The idea of the call is to find out what the company want. Sometimes they are so keen for us to get to our planned destination that we take well in excess of two hour's holding fuel.

All clear now?

[silverhawk]

If all four of these RYR aircraft had managed to land 'off airfield' within a short time frame, would the IAA have had to develop a spine and intercede?

Would it have at last, brought an end to this abomination of an airline and it's operation?


Well if not today, sometime soon then.

To all my friends there, keep your arse covered! Good luck.

[NOT ORANGE]

Reminds me of Britania crashing in Girona having diverted from Barcelona with minimum fuel,didn't kill anyone as there was no fuel to burn!Inexperienced skippers bullied by inexperienced base managers to make Michael even richer.I just love how aviation is getting so much safer.Don't blame the IAA he might be on holiday.

[RAT 5]

I would hazard a guess that if you divert when at MIN RESV fuel you will often arrive with <30mins. On various diversions it has often taken 5 mins to get a clearance to start the diversion. If it's close by you then have to brief the arrival and approach at diversion quickly. If you've been in the hold at destination this should have already been done and some sort of FMC programming done for the route. You can create a 'route discontinuity' after DEST RWY and then insert the diversion route to IAF. When I did this technique to a budding 3000hr potential captain he remarked he'd never thought of that nor seen it done. (back to trained robotic SOP monkeys).
Anyway, you were not in the hold but divert almost on arrival as you are given an EAT and have little extra. It will be very easy to arrive at diversion with <30mins and then get a hold due to other diversions. In some circumstances diverting when at MIN RESV is too late, but that is a captain's decision and guidance on that is not often included in command courses. Shame.

[FullWings]

More fuel only means extended holding and a greater choice of in-flight planned destination alternates. It may increase your chances of landing at your planned destination, only because you can hold for longer than those on "minimum fuel". Where the 'extra' safety comes from is a mystery, all the time we have control over where we point the aircraft and up to the minute information about airfield weather, it is not compromised.
Well said.

It matters not how much fuel you took if the delays are more than you can cope with. As long as you keep a eye on your options and don't allow yourself to commit to a "bad" one.

I fly to various corners of the world and often am happy with as little as five minutes contingency fuel. If something makes the destination unavailable, then I'll have to go somewhere else. Simples. A commercial risk, certainly, but not a safety issue.

What really matters is not how much fuel you can fit in the tanks but what you plan and do when it's running low. Many years ago as a junior FO, I used to look up to captains who took lots of extra fuel all the time (because they could). In retrospect, I see a lot of it was a lack of skill and/or judgement plus fear of the unknown. Quite a few characters went to pieces as soon as any sort of airborne fuel decision was required.

To reiterate: you can take as much gas as you like; what sorts the professionals out from the amateurs is keeping the operation safe when it runs low, for whatever reason. From what I read about the RYR diversions, they had some holding fuel but it wasn't sufficient, so they diverted and told ATC that they didn't want further delay (I don't think they got to the stage of PAN or MAYDAY). To me that satisfies the safety aspect.

[Admiral346]

Personally, I took an interest in seeing how efficiently I was operating the aircraft and I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Well, JW411, as BOAC has pointed out, the Data is completely meaningless, with atmospheric conditions, load, route, traffic, etc changing on every leg. It will give the Captain who loads less extra a more efficent fuel burn if all other factors would be the same as his plane is lighter.

So if any promotions or other boni are attached to such a competition, I find it utmost dangerous for flight safety.

[Pitch Up Authority]

Was there any Sigmet issued?

[captplaystation]

FullWings.

Have a listen to the Link on post#70.

[Flappo]

Sad lack of airmanship is the only reason I can see for this. A prob 30/40 TS in Spain in July should have all the alarm bells ringing for all the good reasons (additional hazards) others have given in that environment.

At risk of blaspheming in this crazy accountant-run industry, AIRMANSHIP

The only thing that a p2f pilot can not pay for ....Tick, tock...tick...tock

[LLuCCiFeR]

One has to wonder whether 30 minutes final reserve and 5% contingency fuel is enough in today's busy aviation environment.

Of course the accountants love these figures, but these are really a relic of a long gone era of when flying was for a privileged happy few and each nation had one modestly sized national "flag" carrier.

[BOAC]

More than enough - by the way, do not confuse 'contingency' with 'extra' fuel. It is a totally different calculation. I have NEVER found 5% to be too little. Read Full wings - as with 'personal endowment' - it is not always how 'much' you have got, but what you do with it.:O

[fireflybob]

Surely the basic issue is that it is only the aircraft Commander that has the absolute right (and duty) in law to decide how much fuel to depart with over and above what is legally required.

[boredcounter]

Indeed, FireFly is correct in definition.

However, the number that will now call Ops for an adjustment to FOB when checking the weather, normally to save 2-3 mins of paperwork, leads me to believe they do not have the courage of their convictions in requesting said fuel, or more importantly, cannot be bothered to report, through proper channels, a trend to monitor requiring more fuel.

It is a thin line, we all put petrol in our cars, we all know it is expensive. It is to be carried in 'excess of PLOG' when the Commander sees fit, therefore the Commander can justify, please take the time to do so, sometimes, airport, runway changes etc Operational experience, he will be assisting others and justifying his/her position as 'Aircraft Manager'

Likewise, when presented with a computer generated round trip tanker PLOG, don't take another 5 tonne because it is cheap, it isn't anymore.


Above all, fly safe, your experience is valuable to your employer and those you mentor, F/O's, ground staff and the dreaded beancounters I hope.

[dlcmdrx]

Some responses ( the few ) in this thread from supposedly felow colleagues amuse me to no extent. You guys would be better off as airline management, bean counters and desk pilots.

[BOAC]

I have rung ops a few times when dest wx was ****, when I needed to know whether they would prefer me to divert on 'PLOG+ a bit' fuel or take mucho extra fuel to hold for 1 or 2 hours. It is, after all, a commercial decision, which I had neither the time nor knowledge to assess - not a command one. It can also affect a tanking decision since to use some of your return fuel and to have to uplift a few 100kg is just plain uneconomic. They normally got what they decided.

[172_driver]

I've been accused of being an "expensive pilot" picking up "bad habits" by my BC (although a bit tongue in cheek… but in every joke there is a bit of truth) for not choosing to cruise at FMC Max Alt but using nearest level below Opt Alt, using 2nd detent reverse instead of idle reverse when I thought the situation warranted it, and dropping the gear at 4,5 nm instead of 4 nm from the runway. The fuel fanatics are out there...

[boredcounter]

That would indeed be a scenario I would be grateful to be a part of, and learn from.

However, I doubt from your profile you would define 'PROB30 TEMPO 500 FG' with no destination additional hold and fuelled for furthest commercial alternate, always meeting CATI, on duration of 45-180 mins, when heading to and from a European airfield in a CATIIIb aircraft (or adjusted minimums for equipment or (Crew, not applicable in my employer Airline) downgrade)) as I get the 'more fuel' calls to Ops.

My point, is not many new Commanders, and please excuse me, have the command learning time to carryout 'Command' thinking, more have been conditioned to 'Company Thinking' at best.

[captplaystation]

172 driver,

I remember a very "public" overun , where the PIC (a Line Tng Capt to boot) used F30/ Autobrake 2 & don't remember the amount of Reverse, when common sense dictated that a wet (known but not notified as a bit "slippery" when wet) tailwind landing might have warranted a bit more.
Too many Commanders unable/unwilling to use their own judgement.

[16024]

The next time I exhaust my options in bad weather, having held for 5 (or 55) minutes, and then have to mention that I don't have sightseeing fuel on board because everyone else had the same idea, I hope that I don't get 6 pages written about me.
It probably won't make it onto PPRUNE, though, because I don't work for RYR.
I'm not a RYR apologist, but nothing in this debate suggests dodgy fuel policy, or bad decisions. A few of the replies have made me wonder...

[captplaystation]

It does seem that these guys were indeed left holding a bit of a "slippery baby" due, at least in part, to the help rendered by certain ATC's they had to deal with, so (quite possibly?) no real blame deserved here in ending up with a Distress call.
If nothing else it has opened up a healthy debate on Commanders authority, and the (apparent) unwillingness of some individuals to demand/use it . . and not just in Ryanair.

[plain-plane]

Captains having his fuel decisions questioned by Base captains:
It is well known that one of Ryanair’s most infamous base captains has been known to arrange his office days on days when the weather forecast looks less than ideal. He doesn’t like strong crosswinds much; same goes for snow or TSRA and all the other things in a pilot’s life, which might require that little bit extra of him.
The charming thing about said base captain: He will be the first and worst in criticizing a crew for taking extra fuel. (I am thinking the he has already long forgotten about that one evening he himself landed with LESS than final reserve fuel :=)

But there are also base captains in Ryanair who respect their crew’s fuel decisions without question.:ok: Incidentally an example of one of these base captains will have the home base TAF read PROB40 +TSRA 80% of all summer days…

So in conclusion there are different types of base captains in FR, some are better than others, a few outright gentlemen, and some outright arseholes, but most importantly some are better at withstanding the pressure from DUB, and therefore protect their crews better.:ok:

You as a pilot will have to play the cards you have been dealt, and take the fuel you need. But you can do all things right, all day, and still have to declare a fuel emergency… I wouldn’t like to point any fingers at these 4 crews just yet.



FR trivia:
If memory serves me correctly: The only mention of airmanship in FR’s ops manual is in the chapter on selection of autobrake and which rapid exit taxiway to use… go figure…:ugh:

[teddyman]

Come on guys! Prob 30 TS.:ugh: You need extra fuel and RYR knows that. I promise you no BC in RYR skuld disagree. Use Common sense. :ok:

[transilvana]

"My point, is not many new Commanders, and please excuse me, have the command learning time to carryout 'Command' thinking, more have been conditioned to 'Company Thinking' at best."

That´s the point, I wish we could have the 1.500hr minimum time to fly Commercial operations, too many 190hrs propeller guys up there playing adult games, and I know it because I have teached many of those guys, some of them don´t even passed the exams.

[CDN_ATC]

May I ask a question?

On this side of the great pond, most pilots would declare "Minimum Fuel" which despite it's ominous sounding name, doesn't mean the airplane is about to fall out of the sky. It just means the aircraft cannot accept any undue delay, and is not treated as an emergency, because it's NOT!

I often wonder when I see topics like this, if this is what's happening?

[BOAC]

CDN - that is because the US is not in compliance with ICAO. This from a Eurocontrol document:

Fuel Reserves Approaching Minimum
’Fuel Emergency’ or ‘fuel priority’ are not recognised terms. Flight crews
short of fuel must declare a PAN or MAYDAY to be sure of being given the
appropriate priority.

Your training should have advised you that any such call outside the US and Canada will probably be met with
"Are you declaring an emergency" and if the answer is no, you will simply take your turn in the queue.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

[antiskid marks]

No matter what it says,the questions not being in bashing FR constantly but having 3 or 4 aircraft with the same problem at the same time isn't it telling you something?
MAD is a big FR base but it's not either a crazy big company hub like you can find for IB,or LHR BA,CDG AF,FRA LH etc etc...it's quite a percentage having a serious problem that night in MAD. I wouldn't blame the guys themselves because if they were four of them that same time, if that's their decision making...then who's to blame?(4 doing the same mistake) These guys didn't appoint themselves as captains, the company promoted them. Based on which grounds? If the decision making is not good enough then why/how did the company promoted/assessed them?
-either they really need captains and with the conditions they offer, they might need to lower the standards to have enough LHS,in taking guys not able for it or not YET able for it
-or they promote guys who run the show without making waves (sometimes making waves like going against company decision,fuel,etc etc...is the safest and most efficient course of action), no feedback or reports on somebody doesn't make this person good and professional!
-or they put too much pressure/workload so that these guys lose clearsight and decision frame is gone
-or because young, easy-to-influence people start to believe what's constantly said by company in the media:pilots are lazy,working very few hours,not challenging job where everything is under control etc etc and that it can just be them ******* up to make it go wrong. When you get an upgrade in less than 3 years at 25yo, if you're a little bit luckier than the average in not having seen too much crap on the line as in life, you can fall in the trap of,we fly min fuel every day,nothing ever happened,I got promoted, that thing's not that hard to do!Not to me anyway!PROB30 TEMPO..."that's not gonna happen" "why?" "it never does"

I'm not a former Sabena but flown with a couple and I can't believe how much positive these guys,porperly trained from other times, other means, other policies, other beliefs can bring in. The experienced guys teach the youth where training tells you about SOPs,VNAV and paperwork...training is good but still basic and based on SOPs only assuming you will never be in a **** situation with them. Problem is life is life and you'll necessarily get in one and you never are taught on how to take you out of it. Technical and airmanship knowledge is kept to a minimum like everywhere except that with more cpt/ltc of 3 years/3000h, what do they teach you? FO learns slower,gets the upgrade at same point but with less knowledge, and will know even less as a cpt etc giving less to the FO etc etc...

[BobnSpike]

Separated by a common language: In the US, Minimum Fuel and Fuel Emergency are recognized terms.

"Minimum Fuel" = PAN PAN PAN
"Fuel Emergency"= MAYDAY

When flying outside the US pilots should be using the ICAO terminology, but the end result is the same.

"XXX is minimum fuel."
"Are you declaring an emergency?"
"Not at this time, but if I am still airborne in 10 minutes I will be."

[JW411]

Admiral346:

I have tried to send you (and BOAC) a PM about fuel league tables.

I have been unsuccessful (with you - not BOAC).

"Admiral346 has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore, you may not send your message to him/her".

I wonder which one it is? We shall probably never know.

[Depone]

Any evidence yet that any FR planes declared any emergency that day in MAD?

Or that they were alone (apart from an alleged KLM plane) that did so?

Just wondering.

[captplaystation]

Post #70, not 100% proof, but sounds fairly authentic.

It has been posted that they were NOT alone in declaring emergencies, I have no reason to doubt that.

Not mentioned in the Link on post 70 . . I wonder why :hmm:

[LYKA]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice2012011.pdf

UK Perspective.

[Chuck Canuck]

it scares the sh*t out of me,

You should be! Having flown with a number airlines, your observation is not far off. Likewise if you work, like a brother of mine, in some big public hospitals, you will be shocked at the going ons in their operations too.

Commercial pressure with the advent of airlines, railways, hospitals and educational institutions being run like cut throat businesses safety and professional propriety are shoved right to the bottom of priorities inspite of all the public protestations to the contrary.

The travelling public and mercantile capitalism are the culprit. Think about it. Think hard!

[stepwilk]

reading some of the horror stories on PPRuNe seem to suggest there are as many "type" of pilots as there are as many "type" of drivers on public roads and it scares the sh*t out of me,

Where on earth did you get the idea that air-transport pilots are super-competent heros just because they have multiple stripes on their sleeves? Pilots climb the airline ladder based on their seniority, not comparative competence. The person captaining the A380 all the way to Singapore is not necessarily the best pilot in the company (though he may very well be), he's the pilot who has worked for the company the longest.

Yours is, of course, a question that could be asked of every profession on earth...radiologist, NASCAR driver, lawyer, kindergarten teacher, rocket scientist, plumber, newspaper reporter, neurosrugeon...in fact airframers supposedly engineer aircraft to be safely handled not just by the ace of the base but by the mid-level ordinary pilot and even to safely react to the ministrations of the guy who chose flying over plumbing because he thought it would pay better.

[captplaystation]

I guess thats why there used to be aBanner Ad at the top of this page advertising plumbers jobs. . . . . . . always thought that was a little bit exaggerated, but when you see the salaries "enjoyed" in certain companies, (and having spoken to an ATPL holder who was also a free-lance self employed plumber ) I can confirm it is indeed certainly career enhancement.

[newcrew]

does "eu ops" law require any increased fuel for

prob 30 tsra few cb
prob 40 tsra sct cb
+tsra bkn cb


anybody got co policies for the above (no names)

[BOAC]

Policies, no, airmanship yes - it is what a Captain is paid for. Not sure why we keep on looking for 'rules' here. If you have not got enough fuel and the weather is crud, you push off somewhere better and let the company sort it out.

[fireflybob]

Policies, no, airmanship yes - it is what a Captain is paid for. Not sure why we keep on looking for 'rules' here. If you have not got enough fuel and the weather is crud, you push off somewhere better and let the company sort it out.

BOAC, agree 100%.

Doing "things right" (slavishly following a set of rules) is management whereas doing the "right thing" is leadership.

Trouble is the "MacDonalds" approach to aviation (or "painting by numbers") which is now being brainwashed into pilots by certain Companies is becoming far too prevalent.

Of course rules and procedures are important to safe operation but, in my opinion, proficient aircraft Commanders/Pilots also need "original thought" to stay out of trouble - as you say that's what the Captain is paid for.

Also the "rules" are the minimum requirements - I see far too much analysis of PROB30 versus PROB40 TS etc.

[ymmit]

would it be cynical to suggest that an airline might want its aircraft to fly minimal fuel so if delayed by ATC they can declare low fuel and therefore be prioritised over other delayed aircraft?

They're not making money when the aircraft is on the ground...

[airnostalgia]

Even in the U.S. Captains have the authority to add extra fuel if the conditions call for it.

[flydive1]

ymmit
are you saying this is what AA did in JFK 2 years ago?

[despegue]

One thing that most pilots do not realize is that PROB30 and PROB40 is NOT a percentage.
With a prob 40 you can expect the conditionto happen, it is not only 40 percent chance.

[aguadalte]

Why does more fuel equal more safety?

More fuel only means extended holding and a greater choice of in-flight planned destination alternates. It may increase your chances of landing at your planned destination, only because you can hold for longer than those on "minimum fuel". Where the 'extra' safety comes from is a mystery, all the time we have control over where we point the aircraft and up to the minute information about airfield weather, it is not compromised.

I couldn't agree more if weather was the only decision making cause for a pilot to decide on fuel quantities.

Unfortunately "weather" only accounts for a mere 8% on accident statistics. But "mechanical failures", for example, represents something like 24% and "pilot error", more than 50%.

As to the phase of flight, "approach and landing" accounts for 36% of all the accident statistics.

How long did it took that Qantas A380 (re-enforced) crew to deal with their emergency? Airliners are much more liable today, but they are also much more complex to handle, especially when not in normal operation.

So why do we take our fuel decisions only having in mind the weather circumstances? Aviation is not an exact science. Airmanship and experience are the answers, not been counters and rules.

I understand that SOP's are necessary for guidance, and rules are minimums, but captain's discretion must never be challenged by pen pushers. Final fuel decision is Captain's decision.

After a two men crew long night flight (or even after a long day short-haul roster) I'd rather reach my destination with some time/fuel to spare if needed, than with only a 5 minute extra...that's why I believe that a 30 min final fuel reserve is not enough. It should be extended to 45 minutes.

[fireflybob]

Why does more fuel equal more safety?

Because it gives you more time - it's not a tankful of fuel, it's a tankful of time

[Flingwing47]

Guys,
refer to this link to confirm that in Europe and lots of other places "prob" IS the expected chance of change expressed as a %

METAR TAF DECODE (http://www.flyingineurope.be/metar_taf_decode.htm)
:)

[GlueBall]

Thanks for digging up the correct interpretation. I never thought that "30/40" was something other than percentage [%] of probability. :ok:

[aguadalte]

Because it gives you more time - it's not a tankful of fuel, it's a tankful of time

Right! That's exactly my point.

[Jimogr]

Statement about this:
Madrid Diversions To Valencia 26 July (http://www.ryanair.com/ie/news/madrid-diversions-to-valencia-26-july)

MADRID DIVERSIONS TO VALENCIA 26 JULY

Due to severe thunderstorms over Madrid on Thursday (26 July) Spanish air traffic control instructed a number of inbound aircraft (including 3 Ryanair aircraft) to divert to and hold over Valencia Airport. Having held over Valencia for 50 mins, 68 mins and 69 mins after their scheduled landing time in Madrid, Ryanair’s 3 aircraft (following standard industry safety procedures) requested air traffic control permission to land immediately as they reached their reserve fuel minimums, which allow each aircraft to operate for an additional 30 minutes (approx 300 miles) of flying.

All 3 aircraft landed normally with reserve fuel levels (of approx 30 mins or 300 miles of flying) remaining.

[Tiennetti]

This is not true, Spanish ATC cannot instruct you to divert (and hasn't done this) and they have not been held holding over VLC, as the landed as soon as they reached the airport.

If you have any doubt, FlightRadar24, click on Playback and watch from 19:00Z on 26/07

RYR9VR (STN) and RYR5389 (NYO) are two of the maydays, and they went straight to VLC after very few minutes.
The other should be RYR2054 (PMI)

[pampa1]

Whenever I have in front of me a forecast saying there will be possibility of bad wx, I increase block fuel at least of an extra 15/30 min FT...Am I wrong?:ok:

[transilvana]

If you have any doubt, FlightRadar24, click on Playback and watch from 19:00Z on 26/07

RYR9VR (STN) and RYR5389 (NYO) are two of the maydays, and they went straight to VLC after very few minutes.
The other should be RYR2054 (PMI)

I have followed it from 20:10Z when I can see the RYR RYR2054 at LEMD, the last one to land at LEVC is RYR5389 at 21:24.

Three aircrafts were at LEMD no more than 20 minutes, what I see a normal procedure, arrive to destination and proceed to alternate, no holding or waiting at LEMD.

Also, no holding or waiting at LEVC.

I don´t know where did they get the numbers for the holdings times at Valencia, would love to know it to write them a hard letter.

[the_stranger]

@Depone
Any evidence yet that any FR planes declared any emergency that day in MAD?

Or that they were alone (apart from an alleged KLM plane) that did so?

Just wondering.

The KLM plane did not, as far as I know, declare an emergency, they just stated they had 5 minutes (extra) left.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Some bad weather days, I have to give the same reply to ATC when they ask me how much longer I can stay in a hold. Five minutes and than I have to divert (or better said, choose where to commit) to land with the required 30 minutes in tanks.
Even taking no drop of extra fuel would make for a safe flight, if you decide to divert early enough.

Declaring a emergency (assuming that is what has happened) only means one thing, something went not according to plan, or the plan was wrong to begin with.

Diverting early enough means you don't have to say mayday, unless really unforseen things happen. The mentioned LAN with an engine failure causing a extra holding delay at your diversion airport can be quite unforseen and bring you in the mayday phase...

[FRying]

What kind of pilot would take off for CBs-cluttered airfield with only minimum fuel !!!????!!!

A slaved-stockholm-syndromed pilot, maybe ?

Surely not a responsible ,gutsy-one, for sure !!

What I notice is that all other airlines have had to pay for Ryanair's fueling policy as they had to accept Ryanair's 738s priority...

Anyway I think Ryanair's chief pilot needs to get the sack and be taken to court for his inducement to dangerous behaviors.

There should be NO pressure on pilots regarding the amount of fuel they take on, only relevant information in order to have pilots make their own sound decisions, weighing costs vs risks and operations.

[the_stranger]

I don't see the problem with minimum fuel while the destination is covered with TS. It just means the chance is higher you have to divert. It only means that.

Is it smart? No, not in my opinion, since diverting costs more money then 30 minutes of extra fuel. But it doesn't make it unsafe, as long as you keep planning to land with 30 mins of fuel left.
It does limit your options and makes for more work though..

[FRying]

Yes, the stranger. It is SOOOO unsmart ! It is ridiculously stupid as well.

As you outlined, it limits your options. And the fact you won't be the only one in the sky could well put you in deep trouble. The Ryanair guys have been lucky : no go arounds (own or other acft's), no CBs building up in VLC as well, no contaminated runway, no failure, no other aircraft calling for mayday, etc...

Imagine EVERYONE takes minimum fuel, which is normal according to you. Then Ryanair airplanes wouldn't have been granted any priority. Which means what ? They would have been holding an extra 15 to 20 minutes ? And commited to land, no go around allowed, which MUST remain an option in your mind at ALL TIMES !

Reading Ryanair's PR people, everyone should be happy as the 738s landed with the minimum fuel which must be around 1000 kilograms, 500 kilos in each wing. How wonderful !:ugh: Taking 500 to 1000 kgs will cost what ? 5 pounds ? 10 pounds ? Even it costs 50 pounds on some routes, then what ? Is our industry so tight as to feel more harmed by 50 pounds than by a dangerous situation ?

Come on, that's ridiculous. I think leaving with minimum fuel + 100/200 kgs is fairly standard when all is well. Now, leaving with that amount when destination is fairly risky is not a matter of costing a bit less or a bit more. It means putting extra probability to put 180 people's lives at risk.

[the_stranger]

Again, I wouldn't do it, but does minimum fuel make it automatically unsafe?
In my opinion not. The reason I would take more fuel is not due to safety, but due to not wanting to divert if not really needed.

In the case of only the destination airport covered in TS, in the western part of Europe there are more suitable airports then p2f candidates. It just requires a constant and vigilant watch on the weather conditions at destination and a number of surrounding airports, as well as airports enroute.

Offcourse real life is never as black and white as a internet discussion, but again I will state that flying to a TS covered busy airport with minimum fuel is not usafe, allthough usually not very clever.

More fuel does not equal more options in all circumstances. A decision to divert a little earlier is the same as taking extra fuel. If approaching a sort of closed airport due to TS, you know what fuel you need to be at your alternate and have 30 minutes left. What stops you from diverting earlier then that point?

Minimum fuel does NOT equal a low fuel emergency while diverting. You ask for priority when the amount of fuel on landing is less then 30 minutes, not before. So if you do your job right, that wouldn't happen, apart from unforseen cicumstances. (but those can happen on every flight, CAVOK or not).
Come on, that's ridiculous. I think leaving with minimum fuel + 100/200 kgs is fairly standard when all is well. Now, leaving with that amount when destination is fairly risky is not a matter of costing a bit less or a bit more. It means putting extra probability to put 180 people's lives at risk.
I can tell you, 90% if not approaching 99% of the flights in our company (at least the European division) take off with bare minimum fuel, which is trip plus altn plus final reserve (30mins) plus 5% cont fuel (with a minimum of 5 mins).
No more, no less. Having said that, taking extra fuel is in my company never a problem, never asked to explain, all up to the captain. And I do take some extra, but only on certain (few) flights where I can expect holdings since diverting will cause massive disruptions in the schedule, both mine as the company's. But I do NOT take a extra amount just for safety above the minimum calculated by our flightplanners.

[fireflybob]

More fuel does not equal more options in all circumstances. A decision to divert a little earlier is the same as taking extra fuel.

But carriage of extra fuel means you have extra holding for destination and therefore makes commercial sense - I thought the idea was to get pax to their intended destination wherever possible!

With talk of PROB40 TEMPO TS I would be thinking in terms of taking at least an extra one hour's holding as TEMPO means a change of up to one hour and I would therefore want flexibility to hold for an extra hour's holding so I stand a fighting chance of getting pax to where they want to go!!

Are pilots becoming so brain washed that they cannot think for themselves - what a sorry state of affairs? The only person that decides on a final fuel figure is the Captain!

One thing is for sure - these machines don't run very well on air!

[the_stranger]

You should not depart with the full expectation of diversion at destination. Unless you have two destination alternates where a safe landing can be assumed.I depart with the fuel I think I need to complete my trip from A to B, while during the flight checking if I can complete that trip or have to divert with 30 minutes left in tanks.
Thats why we do fuelchecks.

I know the airports I fly in, and in my part of the world there are so many suitable airports, diversion at any stage of the flight is (almost) never a problem.
If for some reason there are problems, you either take extra fuel, or decide to divert earlier. Both viable and safe options, regardless of you took extra fuel.
But carriage of extra fuel means you have extra holding for destination and therefore makes commercial sense - I thought the idea was to get pax to their intended destination wherever possible!I never said it was wise to go with minimum fuel always. In fact, I said it would be smarter to do so, because that would safe money by not having to divert (as often).

But a commercial reason is a totally different thing than safety. The only thing I wanted to say was that taking minimum fuel in any situation does not have to be unsafe.
Our company has calculated with figures from past flights that a certain amount of fuel "extra" is needed to "assure" 99% of the flights do not have to divert to have 30 minutes remaining. That is, together with the usual required fuel, the amount they want us to take along as a minimum. The chance, and therefore the costs of diverting is taken into account by "management". So theoretically, I only have to take that amount to "be sure" I arrive at destination well within limits in 99% of the flights.


Are pilots becoming so brain washed that they cannot think for themselves - what a sorry state of affairs? The only person that decides on a final fuel figure is the Captain!To continue the above, in 99% of the flights, the amount calculated by the computer should suffice. However, since I am a thinking captain, I do not always trust the computers and under certain circumstances I will take more.

But I will NOT take more just to be safe, I will not take 200/300KGs because it is supposed to be the right thing to do. In my company I see more people not thinking for themselves and taking a ton of extra fuel "just to be sure" then people taking minimum fuel but having thought about it.

[kick the tires]

Not very good at these urls....

http://http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/airline-probed-over-low-fuel-emergency-landings/story-fn32891l-1226450741826?sv=12c5e403cf3d58cdcc10b507c4a80e15 (heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/airline-probed-over-low-fuel-emergency-landings/story-fn32891l-1226450741826?sv=12c5e403cf3d58cdcc10b507c4a80e15")

[BOAC]

I guess we will never separate fact from fiction here, but post #25 intrigues me. It SUGGESTS that one of the FR a/c actually made an approach at LEMD and went round, which adds a little missing flavour to the FR press release.

Regarding 'diverting early' (which is my favourite) - eg from the hold - it offers many advantages, including far more fuel to play with for holding at the alternate and an un-rushed, 'measured' diversion (plus if you play it right, you get to be first in and first on the bowser.:))

[fireflybob]

Regarding 'diverting early' (which is my favourite) - eg from the hold - it offers many advantages, including far more fuel to play with for holding at the alternate and an un-rushed, 'measured' diversion (plus if you play it right, you get to be first in and first on the bowser.)

BOAC, as always the voice of experience - thanks!

[riverrock83]

Not very good at these urls....

http://http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/airline-probed-over-low-fuel-emergency-landings/story-fn32891l-1226450741826?sv=12c5e403cf3d58cdcc10b507c4a80e15 (http://heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/airline-probed-over-low-fuel-emergency-landings/story-fn32891l-1226450741826?sv=12c5e403cf3d58cdcc10b507c4a80e15%22)

The Beeb version:
BBC News - Ryanair emergency landings 'followed procedure' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19267153)

Ryanair's minimalist press release (although its more than they often do!):
Madrid Diversions To Valencia 26 July (http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/madrid-diversions-to-valencia-26-july)

[the_stranger]

stranger,

taking only minimum in diversion-high-likely scenarios is unsafe! So some have said allready, but why? What makes it unsafe? It does make it not very commercially sound, nor will it please my wife if it means coming home later, but unsafe?
The ace-card mayday only helps and protects you because still in todays high competition environment a lot of other operators and skippers do not take minimum, therefore have the ability to let you in before.I have never used that card (except for a engine fire on ground). I have however, on a flight with CAVOK forecasts for both my destination, as well as two alternates, decided, when some seafog rolled in more or less closing my destination to divert some minutes before I reached my altn fuel plus 30 minutes, so I arrived at my alternate with some minutes above those 30 minutes in case of unforseen circumstances at that airport.

Now tell me, how unsafe was I?

Now lets say I knew about the fog and again I left with the same amount of fuel (minimum) and at the same point I diverted to the same CAVOK (inland) alternate, landing with 30+ minutes in tanks.
How is that unsafe(r)?
(again, since a lot of people fail to keep those apart, it would not be smart, since diverting costs more then some extra fuel, but smart is not the issue here).

It is an airmanship and gentleman thing for me. We are all out there together, so we should all behave sensible, as in such situations, the behaviour of one crew influences the situation for another crew. This is of course nothing to be put into rules, as it is far more complex and greyish for simple paragraphs.Again, safe and smart are mixed together. Is it smart in some circumstances? Yes! Is it unsafe if you do not? No, not always.

If now one airline makes good experience with a defacto minimum fuel policy, it doesn't mean it is safe. It just means there is (luckily) enough slack in the system that it does not immediately collapse. To abuse this fact for the own economical benefit is in my opinion disgraceful and irresponsible.How would diverting a little more than other airlines be abuse? It just means more cost for the airline and more income for other airports.

It is the same kind of behaviour that led to the financial crisis. Everyone just optimising his own little garden without considering the bigger picture. We would all agree that the banksters are not a good model for ethics and professionalism. So we should avoid acting like them.I fail to see the way they are the same.

To be clear, I do NOT condone the use of a mayday/panpan/priority as a standard to safe fuel. I make sure I ALWAYS land with 30 minutes of fuel left (or more), regardless if I divert or not.

That makes it safe, not taking extra fuel.

Fuel is not a substitute for brains, nor safety. Fuel is a substitute for time. It gives you more time to decide, but so do earlier decisions.
My company wants me to flight with a little fuel as possible, within the margins of safety. That last part is up to me and to me, that does not always equal taking more fuel, but it does come down to making sure I land, wherever, with 30+ minutes of fuel left.

[galacticosh]

the stranger.

Fog and indeed TS can occur unexpectedly. You deal with it just like you've said.
The point is setting off to an area of known Fog or TS (in my opinion similar as they stand a good chance of improving within 30min) on min fuel is fool hardy. Especially like in this case to a busy Hub.
Fuel gives you time to gather information and make the safest and most commercially viable decision. It also gives you flexibility to change your decisions before you end up going deeper into your tunnel vision. Any pilot who has experienced options blinking out around them due to changing circumstances knows the value of this.
Putting yourself knowingly into a stress inducing scenario before even getting airborne is something that should be left to fighter jocks.

[FRying]

From the start, MAD is an airfield that requires +20 minutes in itself :p:)

[the_stranger]

As a big company, making several hundred thousand flights a year, it will be hard to always arrive at alternate and land with >30 min of fuel left, if the whole company only tanks minimum. Situations in aviation are too divers to judge from your own experience to the overall system level.

Example: if all the operators into FRA fuel minimum, and all have the same closest alternate filed, imagine what happens at this low capacity alternate when the whole wave has to divert on minimum? And still all the European flights are planned with the minimum amount and judging by the (lack of) ASR's, very few flights land with less than 30 minutes. And with very few, I mean not a handful on 100.000+ flights a year.
But to be honest, and I forgot this point, we do, if the price is right, tank the amount neede fot the way back (if flying to a "expensive" airport. But that would leave us with minimum again for the way back.


And I do fly to FRA regularly, and in 90% of the time with minimum fuel, taxiiing in with altn+30 minutes left. And again, I don't see a problem in that, providing you keep up te date with the circumstances around you.
Half an hour before landing we check the weather. Is it iffy? Check more than one airport around you. Depending on the distance the planned alternate does not have to be the best option on that day. Make a calculation for each suitable airport, and there are always more then one in my part of the world, when you want to divert to that airport to arrive with at least 30 minutes of fuel. Do you hear a lot opf diversions to that airport? Plan for a earlier leave of the holding...

Would I know only one other airport would be suitable and therefore very busy, then offcourse I would take more, but going from my homebase to FRA gives me a suitable alternate every 25 miles, giving me an option every 25/GS minutes.

Would FRA completely close during my approach after having flown not a shortcut or such, having burned exactly the flightplan fuel plus the cont fuel of at least 5 minutes and my altnernate would also have unforseen delays, then I agree I am getting close to the limit, but to be honest, that's such a small chance it is not weighing up to taking 200KGs or more on every single flight. And flying in this busy space for 10 yeasr hasn't given me one moment where I was out op options and had to land with less then 30 minutes.
Might have been lucky and past results are never assurances for the future, but taking more/too much fuel does not make for a safer flight (but it does make it easier).
the stranger.

Fog and indeed TS can occur unexpectedly. You deal with it just like you've said.
The point is setting off to an area of known Fog or TS (in my opinion similar as they stand a good chance of improving within 30min) on min fuel is fool hardy. Especially like in this case to a busy Hub.
Fuel gives you time to gather information and make the safest and most commercially viable decision. It also gives you flexibility to change your decisions before you end up going deeper into your tunnel vision. Any pilot who has experienced options blinking out around them due to changing circumstances knows the value of this.
Putting yourself knowingly into a stress inducing scenario before even getting airborne is something that should be left to fighter jocks.
I don't know what other people do, but when knowing the destination is not great weatherwise, I start making plans early during the flight, of not before the flight. That does not create stress, it is part of my normal job. I do not wait until I pratically see the airport

Our flights range typically from an hour to an hour and a half. With ACARS, I can be updated on weather from the moment I get airborne for all airports within reach. With VHF and ACARS I can talk to handling on destination to get an idea if there are a lot of diversions, holdings etc.
Within 10 minutes after the after t/o checklist I can have an altered plan, selected my actual alternate (which might be different than on the flightplan, reducing the required fuel) and have a good idea of the traffic there (ATC does help you know in giving info on how many have diverted to that field). Still got at least 30 minutes left before we start an approach. Time enough to adjust the plan if needed.
And this way of planning would be the same if I had minimum fuel or 1 hour extra. I always know when to divert to land with 30 minutes left and that moment is almost always (far) earlier the moment where I am left with altn+final reserve.

I am talking about a situation where only the destination is difficult, weather or traffic wise, giving me options all around me and the destination. Things chance, as would the amount of fuel in my tanks, if the trouble is allready at more than one location.

But the way I have been working, as have most of my colleagues has not given one low fuel emergency for the last 4 years, nor do we divert a lot. But we do save a lot of fuel and save more every year by looking professionally at our required fuel instead of just taking extra.

[captplaystation]

I am constantly amazed by those that are comfortable arriving anywhere with 30min till double flameout . . . . because that in plain language is what we are talking about.

How often in a Simulator has some emergency been given where time has seemingly gone onto fast-forward & whoops, coffee-break time/ end of session as 30 min has just vanished.

Missed approaches with 900-1100kg in the tanks are just a little out of my comfort zone. I seem to remember a few years ago in a Ryanair manual a paragraph stating that no flight would be planned to arrive at destination OR alternate with less than 2000kg remaining, but I guess they removed that particular advice, or no way could you hold till 2000kg & then subsequently plan to arr at alt with a ton or so.
Legal as it may be,personally I get a little uncomfortable being airborne with much less than a ton a side, & have some justifiable doubts over the actual burn that is forecast to alternates, particularly if you are not the only one & will not be declaring an emergncy to have priority. Certainly most diversions I have undertaken have mysteriously used a chunk more than the meagre amount forecast.

Those that routinely take minimum fuel (or anything close to it) on a dodgy day are (IMHO) being somewhat optimistic/unimaginative.

If you imagine a scenario where on a busy night you quite possibly given less than optimum inbound route/early descent, & your subsequent diversion is more than likely accompanied by several others in the same boat, are you going to truly feel comfortable hoofing off to somewhere else that has been calculated at the minimum possible burn, to arr with 30 min holding till silence in a best case scenario ? ? If you are, congrats on your supreme self confidence, & on the confidence you display in both lady luck & the bods/computer responsible for your flight planning programme.

I am not "blessed"(?) with either of these attributes so use the old fashioned method that has kept me out of trouble this last 23 years - EXTRA FUEL.

An awareness of ones own vulnerability used to be seen as an attribute in aviation, the Beanies have not yet brainwashed it out of my generation, although I do occasionaly see contemporaries who delight in calculating all the variables possible to depart with less than block fuel on the log when there is patently no need & a few centimes of benefit. I can only assume they have been lucky enough in their career to have never been exposed to a situation where the value of it is self.evident. . . . or they have had their imagination disconnected. :rolleyes:

Whilst I agree in the most basic sense with the stranger that it is not per se dangerous to depart with minimum fuel into forecast poor weather, the extra stress/time constraints you place on yourself /other aircraft/ ATC may lead to circumstances where it will rapidly become so.

For further evidence of this read the report of the Brittania Airways B757 landing accident @ Girona & tell me it would have ended the same way if they had taken an extra 30-45 min in the tanks, me, I somehow doubt it.

[BOAC]

I seems to me that several here have forgotten how div fuel is calculated. Yes, going around at minima to divert is uncomfortable. A 'normal' diversion is not. However, you need to ask yourself WHY you commenced that approach in the first place.

Read how the-stranger handles it?

Missed approaches with 900-1100kg in the tanks are just a little out of my comfort zone. - mine too. How on earth do you find yourself anywhere near that? Are you flying a Citation? That is typically final reserve for a 737NG - and you STILL have 30 minutes. See above?

[FRying]

The RYR guys did not divert from minima. Yet they found themselves with 30 minutes at touchdown because you simply don't fly a straight line from diversion point to threshold. Again, no go around allowed at alternate. Plus, you don't always have the chance to divert from a point 200 miles ahead of your destination. Many times it will occur after a 20 minutes holding and once everybody has already started rushing to the alternate.

Anyway, we can discuss all that for weeks, the bottom line is captains and first officers should never feel pressure to bring less than what they feel comfortable with. For some it will be 100 kilos, for other it may be 700. We're not all made equal in the face of stress and pressure. The 700 guy may not be the black sheep. He's only different and is aware of his own lower limits.

Now, past 1000 kilos as a standard magic number is way out normality to me !

[captplaystation]

BOAC, I was referring to a potential missed approach at the alternate (perhaps due to tech prob or whatever.

I am long gone from destination WAY before that :ooh:

[Stan Woolley]

You will never change the mind of an individual by arguing fuel policy on a forum.

You just have to watch a sim detail go to hell when a fuel situation starts developing, even really good operators can quickly start running out of capacity. The Britannia at Gro is a good example imo Captplaystation.

Many moons ago my mate was a Fo tasked with ferrying a 767 into Gatwick with a Management Captain who proceeded to reduce the amount of fuel my pal suggested (sensible) and they set off with minimum (bare) . Not surprisingly they were asked to hold on the arrival (weather fine) and promptly diverted to Ltn !

I'm with Studi and Captplaystation and all the other 'cowards'.

[the_stranger]

The RYR guys did not divert from minima. Yet they found themselves with 30 minutes at touchdown because you simply don't fly a straight line from diversion point to threshold.On our flightplans, diversion fuel is calculated via a SID/STAR, never a straight line. Also (most of the time) three other options are given, calculate by the same way and indicated as how much fuel we would need extra/less compared to the planned altn.
A straight line is not required to keep me within my diversion fuel.

Again, no go around allowed at alternate.And if I would expect one, I would plan for it. Ofcourse you never know, but how many unlikely variables do you take into account?
Even if you take 2 hours extra, there are always some scenarios to be imagined where you run out.
For me, the chance for doing an approach while running close to diversion fuel plus 30 minutes, going around, using more then the planned div. fuel and going around at the altn are so small I more or less disregard it. unless you can expect a go-around/linger routing.
But then you plan for it.
And in the end, those 30 minutes are meant for extreme unlikely things..
Plus, you don't always have the chance to divert from a point 200 miles ahead of your destination. Many times it will occur after a 20 minutes holding and once everybody has already started rushing to the alternate.Since when do others decide for you when to divert. If, at 400' after T/O, I want to divert, I divert. I ALWAYS have the chance to divert, be it 200 miles before destination or after a go-around. Having limited options where to divert to, that's another story, but again, you plan for that.

Anyway, we can discuss all that for weeks, the bottom line is captains and first officers should never feel pressure to bring less than what they feel comfortable with. For some it will be 100 kilos, for other it may be 700. We're not all made equal in the face of stress and pressure. The 700 guy may not be the black sheep. He's only different and is aware of his own lower limits.

Now, past 1000 kilos as a standard magic number is way out normality to me !You are totally right there and I am not advocating my way of working as being better. There is the law and your personal margin. That last part is totally up to you and you should feel comfortable (including the rest of the crew).

It certainly has nothing to do with guts, cowards or how far are you daring to go. It is a personal thing to decide how much you want above the calculated, and therefor legal minimum.

But saying more fuel equals more safety is mindlessly repeating eachother

[Pilot_OLF]

gues their fuel cards were out of limits and declined :O

[antiskid marks]

It's a personal choice, but how come Ryanair has 4 aircrafts doing the same thing when others don't seem to....!
I guess it might be a personal choice or whatsoever but if everybody has the same proportion of aircraft diverting in a mayday the system collapses. All the "our flightplan include SID/STAR stuff"...first it's the law which respecting seems like an absolute minimum, second it's for everybody the same.
It might be safe to fly minimum but sometimes it's just ridiculously stupid...TAFs and METARs are one thing, SID/STAR etc are the theory so what happens in those situations?ATC has to take you, first through CBs and use different routings as there is probably a lot more of a workload on them due everybody encountering issues (offtrack aircrafts, more aircraft piling up in the sector, reduced capacity and use of unusual holds). It's a really busy airport, do you really expect to get your standard SID/STAR trackmiles at optimum speed, anti-ice consumption etc...? You don't know what's gonna be the WX enroute to your alternate, central spain is a huge overheated high altitude plateau, conditions for TS creation if they prevail in MAD, they probably also prevail in its mid-range vincinity due similar landscape, terrain, sun exposure etc...MAD is south west corner of Europe, depending of the inbound traffic flow, it might be more crowded in the North sectors for last european medium haul coming in. If you hold north west of the airfield or south east it's not really the same story to go to VLC. Although there are the minimum legal requirements, if you have to go through all the traffic in diagonal, you're a lot more likely to suffer extra track miles to avoid traffic etc. Who's at low altitude between south east holds at MAD and VLC: nobody. Who's at low altitude between north west holds at MAD and VLC, all the traffic.
Then thinking you can still use the mayday joker card is just wrong and to me a lot of disrespect to others...you just put everybody in a more difficult situation with guys waiting for their turn in the hold being delayed due to your priority etc, increased EATs at last minute etc...it would be a disgrace.
Sea fog is a difficult thing to predict, it can happen really quickly with very specific conditions needing to match in very specific circumstances...TS in an evening summer in central spain doesn't seem to me that unusual.
But for all this, you need to gather experience, listen to experienced captains, and not just take the answer databases of the ATPL but understand the books etc...
If we just stick to the minimum fuel and listen 100% to the company orders then we are not much more than bus drivers...it's not a default of their pilots I guess. It just questions the real freedom you have regarding your fuel uplifts and consequences.
Finally, some airlines invest in controlling their operation. According to what I've read on the case, it seems two of those planes were really close to each other. The operations department could find a mean to communicate with their aircraft giving a heads up on what's going on with company aircraft. It's a mess just spreading the information might be a valuable input!

[newcrew]

dest = FIMP taf 5000 +rats bkn cb

alt = FMEE taf 5000 +rats bkn cb

safe?

legal?

how much holding fuel?

[JW411]

I really don't know why I am getting involved in this discussion, but I will. For those of you who have been involved in pprune for some years; I will apologise in advance for I have said most of this before.

I flew DC-10s for Fred Laker. Laker, from an operating crew point of view, was a pretty efficient operator. We always, as a matter of course, carried an extra hour of fuel contingency for New York and Chicago. Those of you who know anything about carrying extra fuel will already know that you will burn 10% of the weight of the extra fuel just getting it to the destination.

So, when JFK went out in severe thunderstorms (such as MAD), it was not unknown to go round in circles at Micke intersection with lots of other fellow travellers burning fuel like there was no tomorrow and then end up diverting to Bradley or Boston.

After Laker went down the tube, I went to work for a Part 121 operator at JFK flying ex-Laker DC-10s on the N-register.

They had a minimum (plog) fuel policy which worried me a little.

So, I found myself in an ex-Laker DC-10 but now under Part 121 arriving at Micke intersection with not a lot of extra fuel but the decision was amazingly simple from a captain's point of view.

As soon as the fuel got to Bradley or Boston minimums, then off you went
and there were absolutely NO GREY AREAS.

I really cannot see the problem with aircraft arriving at VLC on diversion from MAD announcing a "Mayday" on the basis of low-fuel. I would have to go into my attic to dig out the old regulations (CAA and FAA) but I have to say that any aircraft that is likely to land with less than the minimum emergency hold fuel, is absolutely required to declare a Mayday.

(In approximate terms, emergency hold fuel (15-30 minutes) is to cover the situation where you have arrived at your diversion airfield, made an approach and then had to go-around because the runway was blocked and then make a circuit to land with dry tanks.

Have things changed?

[BOAC]

I guess we will never separate fact from fiction here, but post #25 intrigues me. It SUGGESTS that one of the FR a/c actually made an approach at LEMD and went round, which adds a little missing flavour to the FR press release.
The RYR guys did not divert from minima. - do you know this as a fact? If so, your source?

How many 'whoopsies' are you guys going to plan for? A G/A at alternate??? Holding for 50 mins at alternate? These things are just NOT part of normal fuel planning. They are what PAN and MAYDAY are for. Are you going to plan for the Boeing 'Gear Lever jammed' or Gear will not extend manually' checklist from the Classic days as well? 3800kg minimum I recall to run the checklist.

[beernice]

Just who said these captains did not take extra fuel? This whole thread is based on the assumption that these aircraft departed with minimum fuel but nobody can say if this is the case.
Second a mayday for fuel is declared when the expected touchdown fuel remaining is less than final reserve. Given that Spanish ATC are a disgrace to the profession and getting accurate information is next to impossible, is it any wonder that maydays were declared. If you can't accurately predict when you can touchdown you have no option but to declare an emergency. I believe all Ryanair aircraft touched down with above final reserve.
Third, min fuel. I have been carrying min fuel for at least the last 5 years. Never had an issue. I normally land with between 2.8 and 3.0 tonnes. I do note that if I deem extra fuel needed I tend to take a little more extra fuel than many of my collegues. For those of you that are saying taking off with min fuel is unsafe, what of the situation ( a situation I have had a least 3 times this summer) where with passenger and min fuel load I was up to my MTOW. Was this flight unsafe? Should I have tech stopped on the way so I had a little extra just in case when I reached my destination. It is complete nonsense to say that min fuel is dangerous.
Fourth, The Ryanair fuel league is statistical nonsense, the letters you recieve are standard letters telling you well done or could do better. I have had many of both in my time, all end up straight in the bin never to be thought of again. I cannot see why any professional pilot would give a second thought to these letters, they are a creation of non pilot management and have no meaning in the flying world, if these guys want their delusions let them think these letters are changing the way we do business. By the way base captains been ordered by the chief pilot to issue letters to the top/bottom 20% of pilots within the company, company not base! You can see immediately how it is statistical nonsense.
Fifth and last, When it comes to fuel carriage FR are more generous than many of the larger operators out there. Anyone from Easy care to comment? What do you normally arrive with?

[antiskid marks]

Beernice is right we don't know if these captains uplifted extra fuel...
Now, taking extra fuel to burn it in the hold might be one option according to preferred company policy...some companies really want to bring their pax to destination. But burning it to absolute minimum diversion fuel before you go is questionable. If one says that spanish ATC is a non-sense, then you know you just plan to divert a bit before you reach your bingo fuel (if you know that spanish ATC is not helpful, then take it into account, it should be reflected in your fuel management). It's an element which is part of the decision process. Except very exceptional circumstances you should not have to declare a mayday because there were TS at MAD...where is the really unusual situation in this??? Mayday is to be used when you have really bad luck.
Then commenting in saying that they probably landed with more and than final reserve fuel is just ridiculous and if they were so large then why did they declare a mayday!!! And of course once you get priority you'll burn less than you would have if you'd be standing in the queue!
Anyway, I think one can leave with minimum fuel and be perfectly safe if all the aspects have been taken into account. But many of them ending up using Mayday because there were TS in MAD...to me, it's just not a good inflight fuel management, having left with minimum fuel or not....! It's what you do with the fuel you have that matters.

[JW411]

I was actually thinking about responding to Studi and then I remebered that there was absolutely no point.

He preceeded the Wright Brothers by four good years.

[hum]

Three Ryanair mayday calls go out on same day - National News - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/three-ryanair-mayday-calls-go-out-on-same-day-3197081.html)

Well done to those concerned for getting down safely. :D

Although the circumstances & outcome were very different, this one is always worth a look to make sure nothing similar ever happens again..

1956 Hawker Hunter multiple aircraft accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hawker_Hunter_multiple_aircraft_accident)
:sad:

[captplaystation]

Beernice, if (as I remember) you fly for Ryan & carry min fuel, I applaud your ability to consistently land with 2.8 - 3.0 tons.

Many of the routes I plied for Mikey had 900kg or so Div fuel (a tad optimistic) so, with final reserve 1100 (if I remember) & a longish taxi on departure, even applying my best CDA I would arrive (having taken the "discretionary" 300 extra) with around 2400-2500 more often than not.

Actually, NO edited to say, it was fairly route sensitive, & in both GRO & CRL was about 50/50 , dependent on route, between 28-3000 & 24-2500, but, that was with the 300 extra.

Given a "real" diversion fuel of around 1500kg in most cases, that equated to a possible PAN en-route to said alternate.


Anyhow, we are discussing Apples & Oranges, & Spain , in Summer, with TS forecast, & "not overly flexible" (read militant, but Hey , do the Govt even notice? ) ATC, is not the place to Dick around with min fuel. . . and I seriously doubt that these guys did. I am 2nd guessing that all the Ducks lined up, and that the Spanish media is possibly labouring a point here with some Govt sponsored political motive behind it.
Hopefully they all departed with a bit more extra than their Base Capt would have liked, if they did :ok: , if not := they should really be asking themselves WHY ? ?
I would be a little bit ashamed (but not inhibited ) to be forced into declaring an Emergency due fuel, unless I had been thrown a real wide ball.
Unless due to some really unforseen circumstances, I would take that as a surefire indication that my eye was not on the ball that day.

[BOAC]

I agree, poimier. The reference to 'ICAO' was to make sure US and Canadian pilots do not expect any effective response away from home to their call as I believe some do. It is viewed as 'conversational' in ICAO.and normally met (in the UK, anyway) with "Are you declaring an emergency?"

What is the actual required ATC action in the US and Canada to such a call?

[Poimier]

Morning BOAC,

Well, I don't know the answer to that, but I fully recognise your point - not all pilots are aware that different countries have different ways of doing things … even if they speak the same language.

As I said, I like the “Minimum fuel” call as Mayday means, to me, imminent distress, whereas the other one doesn’t. Which is excatly why the ATCO wants to know.

But to revert to the original point, it is a very bad policy for beancounters to decide minimum fuel - way before the crew signs in.

[BOAC]

We agree completely, I'm sure, but regarding 'minimum fuel' - it has ALWAYS been decided for the crew for as long as pilots have been flight planning, and not by 'bean-counters'. In civil life it is the 'fuel required' figure on the PLOG. As stressed many times above, of course the PIC can increase that.

I once experienced a PIC who wanted to reduce it, but was dissuaded by it being pointed out he would need a new F/O.................:)

[Tiennetti]

I guess we will never separate fact from fiction here, but post #25 intrigues me. It SUGGESTS that one of the FR a/c actually made an approach at LEMD and went round, which adds a little missing flavour to the FR press release.

RYR9VR and RYR5389 (two veryfied maydays), didn't shoot any approach

From FlightRadar 24 i can see RYR5996 waiting around 10/15 min East of MAD, approach an then divert to ALC

[Piltdown Man]

...it is a very bad policy for beancounters to decide minimum fuel - way before the crew signs in.

Paranoid Rubbish! Minimum fuel is exactly what it says. It's nothing to do with bean counting. It is a figure which meets all legal requirements in the given conditions. As part of the planning information, we are also given statistical information which tells us how much the average flight varies from the plan and the mean difference in fuel. So, if we wish, we can sometimes depart with LESS than "planned" fuel. But without the planning, how can I possibly calculate how much fuel I really need? It also means I don't HAVE call the refueller back for a prattish 30 kgs. It is no different to performance planning. The bean counters tell me how much I can lift from certain runway under given conditions - so should I use their numbers or my own?

What I actually do on the day all depends... That's what I'm paid for. But let's make no mistake. We as a crew make our own decisions, not the company.

And while we are here - over the last couple of years (500 flights/year) I've only ever flown with 'extra' fuel on a handful of flights. The vast majority of flights I depart with what might be described as "Minimum Fuel" and have only once felt anxious. That was not because it was unsafe but because I felt we might have to divert and would not get our passengers to where they wanted to be.

[NASRI9]

Ryanair & Eavan Cullen on RTE radio news this lunchtime discussing these events. Should be available to podcast from RTÉ - News at One Podcast (http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_newsatone.xml)
shortly.

[Fuel Dump]

Reading the threads here you'll find lots of pilots who dream of flying KC-10's or KC-135's, tanker planes!
For all the others on commercial aviation minimum fuel is the rule, and it will always be, unless the oil price drops significantly, which I don't thing it will. So stop moaning about it and go do your job.
Whenever I deemed necessary I take extra fuel, yes. My employer asks me to justify it in the Voyage Report and one line writing does the job, and that's it!
I also find some pilots flying high speed, out of the optimum flight level, using speed brakes unnecessarily and then complaining that the fuel is close to minimus for alternate! A bit of airmanship sometimes helps...

[Sober Lark]

Just heard matter discussed on RTE but who is Evan Cullen? Sounds like a union guy who knows Ryanairs business and used his 30 seconds air time to try to scare PAX.

[newcrew]

dest = FIMP taf 5000 +rats bkn cb

alt = FMEE taf 5000 +rats bkn cb

safe?

legal?

how much holding fuel?

[tony montana]

non event

is flying with minimum fuel dangerous?

if yes, so regulation is dangerous

so is it dangerous to make an approach to minimuns?

do we need to had 100ft on our minimuns CAT 1

Don't get me wrong, if there CB, TS even on prob 30 tempo, I take extra fuel. So 20 min extra give you normally the opportunity that the cell will move out of the approach path...still then no guaranty.


MAD is mad, a big mess of inefficient airport and controller, unable of efficienty in cavok days so in that case no surprise...let s get out of here

[MrHorgy]

Having just listened to that radio interview, I am slightly disappointed that it turned into a sabre rattling exercise. Whilst IALPA is right to point out that perhaps crews at Ryanair are under pressure, insinuating that planes are falling out of the sky because of Ryanair management decisions is garbage.

We are instructed, on non tankering sectors, that we can take PLOG +300kgs without explanation. Anything more has to be justified - in the cases of WX I have NEVER been asked to explain my extra fuel decisions.

If Steve McNamara is correct in his assertion that aircraft diverted, and then held for an hour in Valencia, and THEN had to call it in, I have sympathy for those pilots. How much are pilots expected to carry in these situations? 60 minutes? 90 minutes? Where is the line?

If Captains are being 'bullied' and 'cowed' into submission with their fuel decisions, then they need to grow some balls and stand up for the real time decisions they made on the line. If your not a smoking hole in the ground then that to me says you made a good decision.

[fireflybob]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

Im my 5 years with Ryanair carriage of extra fuel above PLOG was never an issue - simple one line explanation on the Voyage Report and you never heard anything else about it.

Whilst I do not personally care for the corporate culture of Ryanair it would concern me that lay persons seeing this in the media will get the impression that Ryanair are flying around without obeying the fuel rules which is patently untrue.

What I think is more significant is that Ryanair with its method of business does not make an friends so the Spanish media (and even authorities) will jump on every opportunity to tarnish their image. As they say, what goes around comes around.

[Sober Lark]

No fatal passenger event since they started in 1985. That's insurance enough for me ASFKAP.

[dhorgan]

Either the use of the 'MAYDAY' call is being misused/abused OR the aircraft and/or persons on board are in imininent danger. Commanders call.

[fireflybob]

I believe the priority "PAN" is not recognised in Spain - so has to be MAYDAY.

When to call PAN/MAYDAY with respect to remaining fuel is defined in Company Operations Manual.

[dhorgan]

Company Ops manual does not Trump ICAO definition. Either there is imminent danger (Mayday) or there is not. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

[fireflybob]

dhorgan - semantically speaking I agree with you but crews are also required to conform to the provisions of their operations manual.

With respect to remaining fuel endurance, if on a particular occasion a Captain decides to declare Mayday before reaching minimums specified in the Operations Manual then that is his/her call but Operators are required to define criteria for such action within their Operations Manual.

[Mir]

To all the people saying that minimum fuel is always safe because the regulations says so, what if every plane flying to Madrid on this day had only fuelled minimum legal required fuel, would the situation still be safe???

dhorgan is absolutely correct. A mayday call is a distress call, nothing more, nothing less.

[Tiennetti]

MR Horgy, no aircraft has been kept over VLC more than 4 minutes

[MrHorgy]

Well until we have hard facts (which we won't), any discussion on Ryanair or the incident will go round around until the mods flush it down the toilet where it belongs.

People taking PLOG fuel to Madrid are asking for trouble on a CAVOK day, let alone if there is TSRA in the forecast. As I said before and as fireflybob alludes, people just need to have more confidence in their fuel decisions. If there is delays or WX expected, don't just take an extra few hundred kgs, take at least half an hour!

[Sunnyjohn]

no aircraft has been kept over VLC more than 4 minutes

I'm intrigued - how do you know this?

[Tiennetti]

FlighRadar24.com, playback 26/07 20:00 ;)

Have a look yourself

[BOAC]

Tienetti - as I said in #163 and MrH in #209, the chances of getting the truth here are slim. However, I do not have the time, but if you have it would be useful to list the callsigns involved (from FR24), when they entered the hold at MAD, when they departed for VLC and how long they held at VLC - any chance?

Assuming all 4 aircraft left the hold with a predicted fuel state of CMR at DA following an approach (they would surely not have 'committed' to MAD?) they should have been nowhere near a MAYDAY from what you describe ie "no aircraft has been kept over VLC more than 4 minutes" so it is apparent there is more to 'discover'.

[Sober Lark]

If as claimed by Ryanair they had plus 30 mins fuel / 300 miles then it shouldn't have been a Mayday call.

The likelihood of a quadruple event such as what is reported is much much lower than the likelihood of one event occurring. What happened doesn't seem logical and based on this I'd say the Mayday call seems to have been prearranged between the four of them.

[antiskid marks]

I find this really pathetic to say that it's absolutely right to take minimum fuel and then go in the same post with "spanish ATC is rubbish etc"...what does it say about the ability to anticipate. If you show up with the same fuel in STN and MAD....what does it really say about your "situational awareness".
Once again, the question is more what you manage to do with your fuel and anybody can blame ATC...but everybody who flies in Europe with such an extensive spanish network knows it as well and has to take this into account. It's no big news. Spanish ATC has probably been consistent with their usual performance, nothing unusual. Yes spanish ATC doesn't give any direct but I find this as pathetic to pretend to foresee ATC with 3 plots on TCAS...

I still find strange that it's a "non-event" to declare Mayday. A mayday clearly means "I was not able to foresee what's coming, I need help and can't deal with the normal procedures and course of actions with the fuel I've left".So to say, I've not been able to either uplift the amount of fuel I needed or to take the appropriate decisions relevant to the amount of fuel I uplifted. How come the FR crew were in a more difficult situation than anybody else that night?

If Mr McNamara says something then it's absolutely right. Being a PR person in an airline just shows how much you don't know regulations and reality of the job...not even taking into account that it might not even be close to reality. You divert and you burn 69 minutes in the hold to end up in a mayday situation. Is it being stupid or what? There is Reus, Alicante and BCN just minutes around...WTF. You divert, you would go stack for 69 minutes to mayday when there are loads, loads of good opportunities available. If this is true then it's time to raise other questions.

Anyway, despite blaming spanish ATC, regulators or captains themselves...FR will still have to explain how they don't manage to anticipate all this as much as the other airlines did if it's all the same.
I'm still amazed that people can find normal to use a mayday...

Found on an internet WX website...
TAF LEMD 261700Z 2618/2724 16012KT 9999 FEW050
TX34/2618Z TN19/2705Z
BECMG 2619/2621 VRB05KT
TEMPO 2618/2624 SHRA SCT040TCU
PROB40 TEMPO 2618/2623 VRB15G25KT TSRA SCT040CB
BECMG 2709/2711 24010KT
PROB40 TEMPO 2710/2718 SHRA FEW040TCU=

[Tiennetti]

Tienetti - as I said in #163 and MrH in #209, the chances of getting the truth here are slim. However, I do not have the time, but if you have it would be useful to list the callsigns involved (from FR24), when they entered the hold at MAD, when they departed for VLC and how long they held at VLC - any chance?

Assuming all 4 aircraft left the hold with a predicted fuel state of CMR at DA following an approach (they would surely not have 'committed' to MAD?) they should have been nowhere near a MAYDAY from what you describe ie "no aircraft has been kept over VLC more than 4 minutes" so it is apparent there is more to 'discover'.

2 of the MayDay are surely RYR9VR (STN) and RYR5389 (NYO) as supported by this
http://www.intereconomia.com/flv-video?embed=817649
And this https://www.dropbox.com/s/j9zwsmnsc0w6qk2/maydayryr3.wav

If you follow the tracks, you will se that none of this 2 traffic has been holding in MAD (only some vectors, let's say 10 minutes MAYBE,probably less)
RYR9VR has done 1 orbit in VLC to let the LAN land before them, while RYR5389 ALREADY declared emergency when still descending to FL130 inbound MILOS (still pretty far from VLC)
I am not sure about the others

I can see only another RYR (2054 from PMI) that diverted to VLC and another went to ALC

[Sunnyjohn]

Thanks, Tiennetti - didn't know about that facility.

[BOAC]

Thanks Tienetti - still shrouded in Irish mystery, though. IF they left for VLC after no more than 10 minutes they would have CMR plus about 700kg at a guess. Once round at VLC then does not put them near Final Reserve.

It is understood that if you are being 'messed around' and LOOK as if you are going to be below FR, then a PAN call is required, and in Spain it is sensible to make that a MAYDAY to guarantee the correct resonse. There has, I feel, to be more.

[Danash]

Coming to this late .....am not a pilot...but isn't it interesting that this make s the general news in Ireland as the battle for EI hots up....

[Flapping_Madly]

My local rag reports the Spanish ASA are to investigate why three Ryanair pilot called for mayday landings. Not four for some reason. They diverted from Madrid to Valencia and after stacking at Manises for 50, 68, and 69 minutes called Mayday. All three had normal minimum fuel left on landing.

The Spanish want to know why only the Ryanair planes called Mayday---none of the other circling planes did. They could face a fine of 4.5 million euros and a ban from landing in Spain for three years.

And don't forget the long running and bitter disputes Ryanair can get into with Spain over airbridges,fees etc etc. Bit of score settling??

Ps forgive if this gets mangled. I'm involved with a war with my PC at the moment.Forgive me if this has been covered.

[SLF3]

Only SLF, so walk in where angels fear to tread. But superficially if four Ryanair pilots found themselves in a bad place and all four called Mayday in a heartbeat that is reassuring, not scary.

There are many reasons I choose not to fly with Ryanair - but safety is not one of them.

[Aldente]

Ryanair's standard report time for crews is 45 minutes before departure. Allowing for at least 5 minutes to log in to computer, read compulsory notices, print weather and flight plans etc, plus a 5 minute walk to the aircraft to be there at the latest, 20 mins before departure, in theory leaves 15 minutes flight planning time. For a four sector day that's less than 4 mins per sector !!!

Surely nothing to do with it ?........


PS

When reported, the IAA told me that there was no evidence / complaints from Ryanair pilots saying this wasn't long enough !

[Depone]

And if there was they would do absolutely nothing about it.:yuk:

What would be the point of complaining anyway? Ryanair pilots routinely report well before STD-45 despite only being paid block times.

[MPH]

The -45min. reporting time is the minimum time you should report, does not mean you cannot come in a little earlier? And by the way the paper work is divided up between capt-f/o. Just hope the computer is working!:hmm:

[the_stranger]

The -45min. reporting time is the minimum time you should report, does not mean you cannot come in a little earlier? And by the way the paper work is divided up between capt-f/o. Just hope the computer is working!So because the company isn't providing enough time to properly brief yourself and the crew, you have to do it in your own time?
I wonder if you would count those 15/30 minutes towards your max FDP and does RYR do that? How about when on minimum rest?

And I never divide my preflight planning between the capt and the FO, I do it together with the other one. Fortunately in my company a minimum time is decided upon together with the union so it is usually more than enough. IN the rare case it isn't, I can take extra time, I might have to tell them why I left late to explain away the delaycode, but it is always accepted as a valid reason.

Pre flight briefings are important, so is enough time to do it...

[fireflybob]

And by the way the paper work is divided up between capt-f/o.

Paperwork? What about "pre flight planning then"?

[threemiles]

If these were the two associated callsigns on 26/07/2012...

RYR9VR aborted approach to LEMD at 20:12 at around 8000ft, right turn to 270°, then the one circle in the West at FL160, then climbed to FL240, landed behind LAN A340 at LEVC at 21:19UTC
No holding of 60 minutes anywhere.
http://i45.tinypic.com/5n5dub.jpg

RYR5389 aborted approach to LEMD at 20:14 at around 8000ft, right turn to the Southwest, then the one wide circle in the West at ca. FL120, then climbed to FL240, landed at LEVC 21:25UTC
No holding of 60 minutes anywhere.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2zh017o.jpg

The third one that may have been affected was RYR2054. Aborted approach to LEMD at 20:10 at around 5500ft, right turn to the Southwest°, then the one circle in the West at FL150, then climbed to FL280, landed at LEVC at 21:09UTC
http://i50.tinypic.com/2emiza8.jpg

Other traffic diverting LEMD to LEVC were LAN705, EZY1419, BEL3731, IBE36MY, AEA6138, IBS2491, however it does not look like a mess. Only, LAN705 overtook the preceeding RYR and EZY on approach, so most likely some reason to rush, too.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2dsp8ia.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/s4lvme.jpg

[A4]

I'll confess I've not read all the previous pages of the thread, so apologies if it's been explained.

If you rock up at MAD and there's TS's all over the place, airport shut, no-one making approaches no EAT's / "delay not determined", then it's entirely understandable to make the decision, early, to go to your alternate.

What I don't understand is the 60+ minutes holding. Why would you hold, to the point where you would be unable to return to your original destination, and then continue to hold to the point where you declare an emergency and land (legally) with final reserve? What was the thought process / rationale / plan in the hold? If you've flown a couple of hundred miles to your alternate there's going to be a decision point in the hold when you will be unble to return to your destination (if it's now miraculously CAVOK with "no delay" (at MAD...?) and in this case that would be long before the point of MayDay. I simple don't understand why they burnt so "low" in the hold when they were effectively now committed to the alternate. Something does not add up here.

Have I missed something?

Just skimmed through and I see BOAC has come to a similar conclusion. The above traces are very enlightening. No holding at all at VLC????

Poor use of English in the following - easily leads to misunderstanding. Having held over Valencia for 50 mins, 68 mins and 69 mins after their scheduled landing time in Madrid, -that's straight from RYR's website regarding this (with my bold emphasis). It's time from diversion initiation at MAD not holding over VLC - so case closed! :}

[jackharr]

I've just skimmed through this thread. All I can say is thank goodness things were not like that in the run up to my retirement in 1998. Captains were captains and were given a degree of autonomy. I really feel for you people today.

My son is about to join the industry. He made the decision himself to become a pilot: there was no push from his old dad. I wish him and his future colleagues the very best - they will need it.

[RAT 5]

I wonder if all these RYR were on the same ATC freq at the same time. After 1 called Mayday did it cause a ripple effect amongst the others?

[JW411]

From the Mail on Sunday today:

"Two Virgin Atlantic passenger jets issued emergency alerts on the same day this year because they were running out of fuel. Air Traffic controllers dealt with a total of four low-fuel emergencies at Stansted Airport, Essex, that day - including a Mayday call.
Two were Virgin 747s, which can carry 451 passengers each. They needed priority landing after flying from America, according to an investigation by the Exaro website.
Virgin Atlantic denied that the planes - named Jersey Girl and Hot Lips - issued maydays. They had been diverted from Gatwick because of severe winds. A passenger on Jersey Girl said: 'To see so many fire engines on landing made me realise it could have been bad'.
On the same day, an Embraer 190, which can carry 114 passengers, was diverted to Southampton and put out a mayday over fuel.
The revelation comes as Spanish authorities investigate Ryanair for three low-fuel maydays in Valencia.
There have been at least 28 cases of UK passenger airlines declaring low-fuel emergencies in the last two years while flying to airports in Britain, the Civil Aviation Authority has revealed. Three were mayday calls made in the last five months of this year. Destinations included Heathrow, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester and Nottingham".

Bearing in mind that Ryanair aircraft are registered in Ireland, I presume that none of their aircraft were involved?

[jackharr]

JW411:"A passenger on Jersey Girl said: 'To see so many fire engines on landing made me realise it could have been bad'."

Reminds me of a similar conversation at Heathrow. Fire engines, ambulances, etc - lights flashing - were positioned beside the runway for a landing aircraft.

Unknown pilot (but from a known airline): "Are they expecting trouble on 28 Right?"

It was reassuring to know that that particular airline employed such observant aircrew:D

[RAT 5]

I'm not familiar with flight trace. very interesting. Those who posted it give relevant timings and say "no holding 60mins anywhere." How does it take 1 hr to fly from MAD to VLC? A delay must have been there somewhere to use up the time.

[Headinclouds]

This never ceases to amaze me.

As a captain for Ryanair, what is your primary responsibility?

Is it or Is it not the safety of the aircraft and passengers? and should this responsibility include prudent decision making regarding fuel, routes, weather, alternates etc?

I know there are a million different contracts of employment, and probably another one being printed as I type this, but are'nt all captains paid to do the same job?

CEO's and Senior Management in airlines, have tried to fly aircraft from desks before....Its very unsafe.....

League tables my ar%e......

[BOAC]

Work out the time to follow that route. Allow an emergency (LAN) at VLC. See what you get?

Guys and girls, the WHOLE point of the PAN/MAYDAY thing is to avoid being dicked around (especially in Spain where Spanish traffic will of course take precedence). You shout the appropriate words and suddenly you get the priority you want. Simples. Job done.:)

[Blind Squirrel]

In his all-too-imitable style, given to today's Sunday Independent. Here are some of the jucier quotations:-

The Ryanair chief defended monthly league tables outlining how much fuel each pilot was using.
'Absolutely. We keep a very tight hold of all waste in Ryanair....It's the silly season and the Olympics are over so let's talk and write a lot of ****e about Ryanair planes running out of fuel.
Do we publish weekly fuel performance tables? Absolutely. We do it to try and improve fuel efficiency.'...
A Ryanair memorandum to pilots dated February 2010, seen by the Sunday Independent, states: 'The routine carriage of 300 kg of extra is discouraged: our PLOGS [Pilots' Logs/flight plan] are generally "fat" with fuel....If we all carry 300 kg of fuel on each sector we burn an extra 7.5 kg per hour unnecessarily.
With an average sector length of two hours, that is 19,500 kg wasted across the fleet daily: the spot price for jet fuel in Rotterdam market on January 8, 2010 was $2.17 per US gallon. Simple maths works out that the extra 300 kg cost the company US $5m (€4.05m) per year.'
Speaking to the Sunday Independent, Mr O'Leary accused IALPA's spokesman Evan Cullen of 'scaremongering'...The Aer Lingus Pilots' association [sic] have a go at Ryanair? There's a surprise. You get an idiot on the nine o'clock news who says, 'without fuel airplanes can't fly.' In actual fact he is wrong. They are called gliders but facts have never got in the way of an IALPA false claim,' he said....
'The inference that Europe's largest airline with a 28-year unblemished safety record would be stopped by some Spanish halfwit is beyond even a joke,' he said angrily.
He said that he didn't allow the Irish Airline Pilots' Association anywhere near Ryanair 'partly because when their lips are moving they are talking horses**t.'

Full text here:-

O'Leary rejects bullying claims in wake of fuel mayday calls - National News - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oleary-rejects-bullying-claims-in-wake-of-fuel-mayday-calls-3203562.html)

[jackharr]

Around the time I retired my airline was being split up. Cutting a long story short, I might easily have finished up flying for Ryanair had I not been able to retire when I did. I know full well that I would not have survived with Ryanair for more than a year. I would have spoken up on some issue or other and have been summarily dismissed.

I (or more correctly my partner) tried recently to book a flight from England to Ireland. It was impossible (from where we live) to avoid Ryanair. The on-line booking process was tortuous and there seemed to be no way of opting out the “voluntary insurance cover” (if there was, the process was well hidden). So we went to the local Travel Agent in King’s Lynn. Ryanair will not deal with with travel agents. So Stella will instead be travelling by rail and ferry. Serves you right Ryanair. You have lost a customer for being so bloody awkward.

[MPH]

Stranger/fireflybob: The paper work is exactly that.....pre flight planning and dividing the work means one prints the paper work, one looks at any other pertinent information and then together pre flight planning is discussed and then on to the crew brief. Nothing strange about this procedure and in generally is accomplished within the 45 mins. It would seem that some of you suggest that this fuel problem was due to a lack of pre flight planning and airmanship on behalf of these FR crews which I am sure is not the case. So, are we to believe that a 4 engined A/C flames out an engine taxing in after a long range flight, or that the numerous accounts of similar minimum fuel and other so called emergency's are due to a lack of pre flight preparation and briefings. I find that a bit far fetched and a lack of respect for our colleagues at FR!

[Joe le Taxi]

'without fuel airplanes can't fly.' In actual fact he is wrong. They are called gliders

Oh, well thats alright then. What was anyone worrying about? And just think of the savings right there. :rolleyes:

[eagerbeaver1]

In all the time I worked for Ryanair, I diverted due to poor weather 6/7 times in 4.5 years as a Captain and I never heard a sniff from "Management".

This culture of bullying is prevalent in industrial relations, but not flight operations (in my opinion). However if Ryanair stopped being such a bunch of gyppo's and installed ACARS it would make things so much easier for everybody to share information and plan.

I can imagine what a total mess it was in Madrid that night having been there myself many many times. I was often dissappointed that Ryanair didn't plan ahead a bit when poor weather was forecast and perhaps fly to a different destination or even cancel the flight. In particular I am referring to snow in Eastern Europe and lets not forget the shambles when we had that terrible snow here!

Don't be too quick to judge - it could be one of us next.

Fireflybob - Paperwork - Semantics. xx :O

[fireflybob]

Just to clarify I was not suggesting that Ryanair pilots skimp on "pre flight planning" - from my 5 years in the Company I know that the huge majority will come in at least 15 mins before the report time (and yes I was one of them) because as professional pilots they realise that, in fact, 45 minutes is hardly sufficient to do the job properly, especially on multi sector days etc.

Depone, whilst in essence I agree that it is, to an extent, semantics but the labels we put on certain activities (or even people LOL) have a big influence on our mindset and thinking. The dictionary definition of paperwork is "Work involving the handling of reports, letters, and forms." I suppose you could argue that pre flight planning is work so there you have it!


Quote:
I wonder if you would count those 15/30 minutes towards your max FDP and does RYR do that?
If I've understood you correctly the answer is yes and yes.

So just to clarify are you saying that if you report 15 minutes early that you would make this your FDP start time? If the FO had reported 30 minutes early would you make that his report time?

[Headinclouds]

Is the company not in breach of the OPS Manual Part A, with regard to interfering in the decision making by the Commander, with regard deciding fuel?

Just a suggestion......

[jackharr]

eagerbeaver1 (who used to work for Ryanair):
Quote:"I was often dissappointed (sic) that Ryanair didn't plan ahead a bit when poor weather was forecast"
But YOU were Ryanair. Who was supposed to make the decisions, some new lads and lasses straight out of university now working in Ops? Surely as a captain, that is exactly what you should have been doing?

[the_stranger]

So just to clarify are you saying that if you report 15 minutes early that you would make this your FDP start time? If the FO had reported 30 minutes early would you make that his report time?
Yes and no. The law in my country states flights have to be planned in sufficient time including the preflight preparation. So by law, a company must plan your roster, and thus your FDP, to include the time you actually need to do your briefings. I assume it is not different in most European countries.
So yes, if the time given is always too short, I do believe if you report early, it should count. The time they do give is counted. If you report early without any need since the standard time is sufficient for most of the flights, it is your own choice.
FDP is defined as a period in which you are required to do work for your company. Showing up 15 minutes early to make enough time to do your work seems to me to fall under that definition.

[JW411]

In my last job (which went on for nearly 20 years) we also had a "45 minutes before and 15 minutes after" requirement and it was perfectly adequate.

In actual practice, most of us reported early for the crack (craic) in the crewroom was wonderful and it truly was a social occasion. Some of the youngsters used to come in an hour early just to listen to guys who had flown the Super Constellation and also to catch up with friends.

All of this was in the middle of the night.

On the other hand, I knew one guy who would arrive in the staff car park 90 minutes before departure and would then sit in his car freezing his b*lls off in the middle of winter so that he could report exactly 45 minutes before rather than come inside and have a hot coffee.

I will give you two guesses as to which of the two was more fun to fly with.

[the_stranger]

I am not saying you can' t come earlier and I am not saying if you do come earlier, it's always on the boss' time.
If 45 minutes works for you and your colleagues, fine, that is how it should be, but when time and time again the planned time of 45 minutes is not enough to do your work, and such comments have been made in this topic regarding the briefing time at RYR, the time you do come earlier, does count as worktime (for me and at least for the law in my country).

I am usually 15 minutes early and sometimes I start the briefing "too early", but not because the time I do have on my roster isn't enough. I use the extra time to chat with my colleagues.

Saying it is normal to come 15 to 30 minutes earlier, because your boss doesn't give you enough time to do your job opens the door to less or no time planned before the flight leaves. Your working hours start at pushback, the time you need to safely prebrief your flight doesn't count.

I don't think that is what we, as professionals, would like to see, now is it?

The law states, as would common sense, that you should have enough time to properly and safely plan your flight. If not, delay the flight, but an employer can't ask time and time again to come in your own time to do the work they should pay you for (and add to the FDP).

[hetfield]

Your working hours start at pushback, the time you need to safely prebrief your flight doesn't count.

Wrong:ugh:. Even in Malta.

[hetfield]

One thing that puzzles me is that Commanders @RYANAIR need to write down an explanation why Extra Fuel has been ordered.

I know, same thing in some US carriers.

But what is behind that?

[BOAC]

But what is behind that? - logic? + padding

[CelticRambler]

Thirteen pages of comment on a trio of RA flights where the pilots would appear to have prepared their flight plan, taken local factors into consideration and landed at their alternate airport without incident. Meanwhile, an AF crew that can't reach its alternate due to lack of fuel merits barely a page and a half ... ? Methinks some posters here lack a sense of proportion. :}

[BOAC]

CR - did anyone die?

[RAT 5]

So why doesn't MOL lobby EASA to reduce its minimum fuel requirements? Every flight could operate as a 'refile in flight'. Going to PMI with BCN as ALTN. File and fuel to BCN and then refile/replan to PMI at TOD for BCN. NO expected delays. no Wx problems etc. RYR would save a fortune if they did this on all their EU flights. There'd be a lot of MayDays as crews were landing with 30mins fuel, but hey, what the hell. No crashes and everybody safe.

[eagerbeaver1]

FFB - I knew exactly what you meant - it is hard to have a knowing joke with words (for me).

JackHarr - I did plan ahead, thats how I/we managed to stay safe.

[the_stranger]

Wrong. Even in Malta.

Might be the fact English isn't my first language, but read my post again. That one sentence was a vision of the future if people think turning up early to compensate for poor planning of their employer is normal. Next thing would be no time planned for the briefing.

[hetfield]

Okay, sorry if it was kind of sarcasm/joke.

I didn't get it that way:)

[antiskid marks]

CelticRambler: You highlight a big big difference here yourself. We have an airline in a situation where basically nothing happens, forecasted thunderstorms in Madrid on a july evening which ends up with 3 aircrafts in a Mayday situation,
and on the other side, you have an airline, who due to fast-changing situation while inflight in a very unstable environment takes measures to preserve the security of their pax and who gets its solutions cut short due to unpredictable ATC of a country in war...Those flights (like a lot of respectable airlines) have the merit not to be uncontrolled missiles once launched. You can still communicate with them and give the best of your info, like a coup, an unsecured airport area or thunderstorms ahead leading colleagues to be short on fuel...:P

Back to the topic: although captains responsabilities, if 3 of them have the same problem in the situation I guess one can call it a systemic problem and not purely blame the individuals. Also, reading that preflight planning is more or less paperwork shows exactly what pressurizing your employees bring : loss of priority management. If somebody constantly nags you everyday with the same crap with the heavy power to do whatever they want with your life, then quite quickly people will think more about staying under the radar rather than taking required measures which would lead to more pressure,things to justify and consequences.

I guess the lies/word twisting to the extreme that has more or less been demonstrated with the minutes of holding not being in the hold just reflects once again the mentality of management. Never to be blamed, no shame, no respect,pathetic pride.

[Admiral346]

Well, there is an issue of having not enough time to brief the preflight on some occasions. At least where I fly. Everything is streamlined to the minute.

But if I need more time, I will simply take it. Hold the PAX at the gate, sort out technical issues or what ever it is. Brief longer, if there is a need for it - usually I try not to be as boring as some of my colleagues, but there might be some special occasion.

And then we board late, we take off late, and we get there late.

No problem. Noone bothers me, and FDP still starts. So sometimes the company will have to call a standby to cover the last legs.

Still, noone bothers me or writes me a letter.

Usually time is enough but tight, but this just might happen.

[WetFeet]

Ryanair's Steve McNamara made an interesting statement in the Belfast Telegraph.

Ryanair spokesman Stephen McNamara has denied its fuel policy was responsible for the mayday calls.

He said the mayday calls occurred in extraordinary circumstances after more than 70 minutes of extra flight time.

"This was an extremely unusual situation. These aircraft, which had already flown for three hours to get to Madrid, found that Madrid could not let them in, so they diverted to Valencia.

"They already had 70 minutes of extra flying when they realised they had to, as per the regulation, land. They know they have to land with 30 minutes of contingency fuel remaining," Mr McNamara said.

I don't know if the rules have changed but it used to be that you required enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 mins, route to alternate and have enough to hold there for 30 mins, then land. If that is still the case and these flights had each had already 70 mins of extra flying (doesn't say if that was in the hold) then does that not indicate that these flights started off with more than the minimum? To me it sounds as though they did have some extra but circumstances meant they ate into that extra and had no choice but to declare Mayday. My question, therefore, is why didn't they divert earlier? Were they getting duff info about the possibility of Madrid clearing?

[fireflybob]

I don't know if the rules have changed but it used to be that you required enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 mins, route to alternate and have enough to hold there for 30 mins, then land.

WetFeet, for despatch you only require 30 mins holding at the alternate. For the sake of accuracy you also have to add contingency (usually 5%) to fuel required to destination and fuel to get to alternate.

[antiskid marks]

contigency fuel roughly 7 mins
diversion fuel to Valencia I guess is about 35 mins
final reserve 30 mins
total 72mins
with a very rough calculation you can end up having 70 mins of extra flight time with no more than minimum fuel...word twisting

extra flight time is not a regulatory word....extra flight time compared to what? minimum Fplan fuel? or extra flight time to normally burnt fuel on this route?(and then, per regulations you get your 70 mins anyway from offblock)

Just another statement to say that obviously, it's bad luck, bad luck happening only to FR and to three of their aircraft in a row on the same evening. Believing it is a lot of disrespect to other airlines to my taste. They try to say that they save so much fuel, are so efficient, and so unlucky. Basically they say that all the BA,LH,AF crew...etc etc are a bunch of losers who are that bad that they're not able to do the same, so arrogant.
This sort of statement means absolutely nothing, are carefully chosen to mislead people. I think nobody should buy this. If they were so large on fuel then why don't they say simply how many tons (or maybe just kgs) they were above Fplan fuel at offblock.
If it's 70 mins of extra fuel, you're talking 2800kgs on top on the 737 if I'm not wrong. 110mins before mayday in the hold either in MAD or VLC...are you kidding me? Why not 5 hours... Please correct me but if you're not tankering that's a huge amount of extra fuel even for any legacy airline. I don't know anybody from any airline who would fly medium haul on 737/320 with that amount of extra fuel,even on snowy days it starts to be a very very large amount of extra fuel....so that seems a little strange. Although it COULD be true if all of them were tankering. Now, even if it would be true, somebody needs to explain how you burn 70 mins of fuel in not holding on the radar tracks that somebody showed earlier on. And if you hold, you burn your fuel till the last drop...Did the three of them had a major fuel leak simultaneously or what?

The problem when you put **** under the carpet is that it keeps smelling...

[CelticRambler]

French radio reported this morning that "the Spanish" (didn't catch which subsection) are seeking to have RA's permission to operate in Spanish airspace withdrawn for a period of three years, supposedly on the basis of this event being the last straw. In the light of the leaked ATC recording noted early in this thread and the very persistence of this story for several weeks, is there any chance that maybe - just maybe! :eek: - this situation was more controlled than it seems?

[Sunnyjohn]

Not Quite. The Spanish Government have called for an enquiry into the incident and have stated that there is a possibility following the results of the enquiry that Ryanair could have its license revoked. Since Spain in general and the southern autonomous communities in particular are desperate for the revenue from the tourism generated by low cost flights, such an action seems very unlikely.

[Noxegon]

The Aviation Herald is reporting tonight that one of these planes *did* land below minimum reserve.

News: Thunderstorms in Madrid on Jul 26th 2012, landings, diversions, fuel emergencies and Ryanair (http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355&opt=0)

[FLR-PSA]

A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-EKK performing flight FR-2054 from Palma Mallorca,SP to Madrid,SP (Spain), estimated flight time 1:10 hours, was on final approach to Madrid's runway 18R when the crew initiated a go around from about 2700 feet MSL at 20:00Z. The aircraft climbed back to FL150 and received delay vectors until 20:27Z (27 minutes), when the crew determined they could no longer wait and needed to divert to Valencia. The aircraft climbed to FL270 and reached Valencia descending through FL100 south of Valencia at 20:59Z. When the aircraft was vectored through extended centerline to the north the crew declared emergency as landing above final fuel reserve was no longer ensured and received immediate vectors back to the aerodrome, where the aircraft landed at 21:07Z with 1029 kg/ 2266 lbs of fuel remaining below the minimum fuel reserve required of 1104 kg/2432 lbs about 67 minutes after going around in Madrid.

Ryanair confirmed in the evening of Aug 22nd that flight FR-2054 landed slightly below final fuel reserve.

Source: The Aviation Herald News: Thunderstorms in Madrid on Jul 26th 2012, landings, diversions, fuel emergencies and Ryanair (http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355&opt=0)

[Aldente]

Liked the comment at the foot of this article :-

"Last week in the Irish papers Michael O'Leary said three other aircraft from other airlines, two EasyJet flights and a LAN Chile aircraft, also had to call mayday landings over Valencia on the same date because of low fuel."

Michael O'Leary was economical with the truth. The local airport operator, Aena, subsequently rejected O'Leary's claim as false, and the only aircraft declaring a fuel emergency on that day were Ryanair flights.

More detail :-


Only Ryanair plans had fuel problems, says Aena

http://elpais.com/el...933_464978.html

21st Aug 2012 - 15:17 CET

The Spanish state-controlled airport operator Aena on Monday rejected claims by Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary That two other airlines, LAN Chile and easyJet, Were forced to make emergency Also landings in Valencia on July 26 due to adverse weather conditions at Madrid airport, When three of the Irish low-cost carrier's plans had to put in mayday calls to land in Valencia due to dwindling fuel.

LAN Chile Aena said the plane did make an emergency landing at Valencia but Because of technical problems, not a Lack of fuel. easyJet plans Said That Were two redirected to Valencia from Madrid on the same day Because of weather conditions. "The only thing for sure Is that Ryanair plans three had problems," Aena sources said.


"Silly season"

O'Leary Ryanair Acknowledged that it publishes monthly figures on pilots' use of fuel as part of its cost-containment drive, but denied the plans had run short. "It's the silly season and the Olympics are over so let's talk and write a lot of ****e About Ryanair plans running out of fuel," O'Leary Told the Irish Independent on Sunday.

[Tom!]

From the Avherald:
The Spanish Airport Operator AENA's statement released to press, that only Ryanair aircraft were affected by fuel emergencies, is contradicted by evidence and is false.

On Aug 23rd The Aviation Herald learned a LAN Airlines Airbus A340-300 landed substantially below final fuel reserve.

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.
News: Thunderstorms in Madrid on Jul 26th 2012, landings, diversions, fuel emergencies and Ryanair (http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355&opt=0)

But not let the truth get in the way of a good story...

[Hunter58]

14 pages of mostly utter nonsense fuelled by whatever resentment against a certain company and in the end it turns out someone else should be asked some really hard questions regarding their fuelling policies....:ugh:

[JW411]

So, now that we have some information as opposed to the usual uninformed hysteria from the usual incredibly well informed and well qualified idiots who seem to be allowed to talk absolute rubbish on this forum, we now discover that things were not indeed as advertised.

I pointed out in post #18 that many airfields in Europe have regulations about the use of APUs (or running engines on the ground).

Now that we seem to have established that 189 pasengers were not actually fried in a death tube for 5 hours on the ground, perhaps I can add a little bit of levity.

I arrived at a Scandinavian airfield in the middle of the night in the winter and, after a few minutes, a Jobsworth came out in his Land Rover, stormed into my flight deck and made it quite clear that if I did not shut my APU down, then I was going to go no further.

It was -20 centigrade outside and we were not going to be there for very long so this seemed quite unreasonable to me. I asked him why I had to do this.

He said it was for noise regulations and, as a captain, I should already know this because it was written in their Jeppessen charts. (I had already read them and had decided to ignore this bit because of the sub-zero temperatures).

So, I closed down the APU and started up the brake fans (which I didn't need but they made more noise than the APU).

He came back quite quickly and told me to shut down the APU.

I pointed out to him that the APU had indeed been shut down but my Brake Fans were now on and when he managed to get orders about the use of brake fans in his airport's Jepessens, then I would be very happy to oblige.

For those IDIOTS out there who think that those of us up front are not trying to do the best for you in the cabin, I have no comment.

[BigFrank]

This has been expressed on this thread a few times; sometimes "full-tilt" other times "grudgingly."

Never having undertaken an MBA, I would be intrigued to have this concept explained in some detail.

Until I receive further information, I remain firmly of the opinion that a business based squarely on massive subsidies from regional EU governments as well as bullying passengers into paying outrageous extra charges on arrival at their airport whether at 9am at a local airport on a sunny morning or at 10pm on a dark winter's night at a remote snowed-in airport on the other side of the continent on pain of not travelling if they fail to cough up owes far more to Gerald Ratner than to Bill Gates or to Henry Ford.

[Sunnyjohn]

Except that, regrettably, so far it seems to have worked.

[captplaystation]

JW411, wrong thread mate :ugh: don't worry, done it myself sometimes. Think you are looking for the Fried Pax in EIN one :rolleyes:

[JW411]

Many thanks; I realised that the next day but I couldn't be bothered to move it.