Am I right to worry about an airline that does not carry enough fuel to hold?

[paull]

Won't say who but a UK to Nice flight was diverted to MRS after a GoAround for 'fog' before refueling and returning to Nice.

They were the only flight not to land, made much of the fact that they had the equipment but the airport did not, but am I right to worry about the fact that they did not carry sufficient fuel to do a quick turn over the sea and land like everyone else?

It is easy to say 'it was fog' but in 30 years of flying in and out of Nice it is the only airline I have ever not had a second attempt. They have now done this twice (last time high-winds that seemed to stop no-one else).

It was a 2 hour delay, we were lucky, last time the waited on the ground in MRS and only after an hour, decide to bus us back to Nice, yes you guessed it, the bus came from Nice so that the returning passengers could get the flight so the delay was more that 6 hours.

Should I organise a collection for extra fuel before departure next time - actually it was probably because they were running late.

[kungfu panda]

The minimum fuel required by regulators is normally something like the following:
1. Fuel from Departure Airport to Destination Airport. +
2. 5% of the above. +
3. Fuel from Destination Airport to the Alternate Airport +
4. 30 minutes holding fuel

This is an absolute minimum and is considered safe by the regulators. You must divert to the Alternate when the fuel remaining is equal to 3+4 above. The problem is it costs money to carry more fuel and therefore many Airlines will only carry the minimum and therefore holding at the destination Airport is either of very limited duration or not possible.

The danger comes when all carriers are using minimum fuel and due to Destination Airport closure they all decide to divert to the same alternate at the same time. This causes delays which their fuel plan does not allow for.

[JeroenC]

Was the fog forecasted? If not, tough luck. If yes, was it below approach ban minima? If yes, tough luck. If not, ask airline to explain.
Regarding wind: each airline sets their own limits, either imposed by their regulator or not. If this doesn't suit you, it's a free world, choose another airline.
Regarding the busses: now I know which airline.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

The straight answer to your question is - No.

As has been described, the aeroplane would have had a "minimum" amount of fuel on board when it left the gate. Had the fog been forecast I have no doubt that the crew would have loaded extra, so I suspect that the fog that hindered the approach was not forecast, and that the forecast was probably for what seemed like a good day. On the other hand, even if they had extra fuel, having had one shot at the approach they would then have to join the queue for their next attempt, maybe this would have incurred a delay longer that they had fuel to hold for, and therefore headed off to MRS sooner rather than later.

Don't know, wasn't there, but all sounds above board and safe to me.

[TrakBall]

There are so many variables in this scenario that it's hard to know what went into the decision making process. However, I think the bigger question is would you trust an airline that did not divert for fuel when it seemed prudent?

[Metro man]

It's possible that the fog wasn't forecast when the aircraft departed. The Captain may have been recently upgraded and higher limits would apply to him. The aircraft may have dispatched with an allowable defect that would limit the landing capability.

The Captain may have decided that it wasn't worth a second attempt given the conditions and decided to divert before fuel became an issue.

[AerocatS2A]

No, you are not right to worry.

The aircraft departed with a certain amount of fuel. The crew made best use of that fuel. They got an approach at the destination and then a diversion to the alternate.

They could have carried more fuel in which case they might have had an approach at the destination, held for a while, done another approach, still not got in and diverted to the alternate.

Neither of the above scenarios is any "safer" than the other. The second scenario has the benefit of increasing the chances of you landing at your planned destination but the downside is that it costs fuel to carry fuel and carrying extra fuel can also mean not carrying as many passengers.

Ultimately if there is enough fuel to ensure that you can land somewhere then safety is covered, anything else is just about passenger convenience. If you want to worry that you might end up at an alternate airport, then go ahead and worry, but there is no need to worry about running out of fuel.

[ExXB]

We know from this forum that not all aircraft carry the same equipment as others. For example U2's A319s don't have the same HF radios as their A320s, or other airlines A319s.

In this case it meant that they had a higher proportion of cancellations (during the French ATC strike) to Spain, Portugal and North Africa as they could not use Oceonic air space to fly around France.

Not unsafe, by any means, but perhaps short sighted by the bean counters.

It does reinforce the idea that each airline, and their airplanes, have differing rules, procedures and equipment. Winds do change in direction and intesity, as does fog, sometimes in minutes. Just because the 'blue' airplane, or the 'white' one operated doesn't mean other coloured airplanes are going to do so.

If you are unhappy with the situation, you have a choice.

[Phileas Fogg]

1. Fuel from Departure Airport to Destination Airport. +
2. 5% of the above. +
3. Fuel from Destination Airport to the Alternate Airport +
4. 30 minutes holding fuel

My recollection is that the 5% contingency was/is added to the total fuel and not just the sector (Point A to B) fuel.

[etimegev]

Wasn’t Malaysia given a rap over the knuckles in the recent past for regularly not having minima when flying in to the UK?

[paull]

Thanks Guys,

The fog was not forecast. So the logic is, with a problem at the destination, better save the hold fuel for the alternate and I guess the sooner you go there the better if you think the rest of the world will be diverting.

[Load Toad]

If it goes very quiet - worry.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Phileas - your recollection is incorrect I'm afraid, it's 5% of the trip fuel, or 3% if you operate in reduced contingency, or even less under other circumstances.

Etimegev - I remember MH arriving at LHR with lower levels of fuel than ideal, didn't they plan their alternate as the other runway at LHR to reduce the alternate file they needed to carry?

Paull - sounds like your carrier and the crew on the day did the right job, they took the fuel necessary, and probably more than that so that they didn't arrive at their alternate with an uncomfortable feeling. They then made sound decisions based in the information they had from ATC about the length of time it would take to make a 2nd approach. At the end of the day it is better to be in the ground somewhere where you don't want to be than in the air with nowhere left to go.

[Phileas Fogg]

I recall a Paramount MD diverting in to Filton with tanks dry having not even made it as far as Lulsgate!

[ShyTorque]

Wasn’t Malaysia given a rap over the knuckles in the recent past for regularly not having minima when flying in to the UK?

I belive they received a ban from UK airspace for about 18 months. It was no huge surprise to me; I'd previously been a passenger on a flight with that airline from LHR to KL, that couldn't even reach that planned destination and had to divert to Penang. That was in good weather, let alone fog at the destination.

[Phileas Fogg]

Phileas - your recollection is incorrect I'm afraid

It's been a long time and even then it was a case of studying how the CFP reached it's final figure before telling the refuellers to fill the wings up or whatever :)

[Hotel Tango]

They then made sound decisions based in the information they had from ATC about the length of time it would take to make a 2nd approach.

:ok: The above requires extra emphasis as many passengers think it's just a case of a quick circuit and in again. Not so. At busy airports it is not unusual to go on a "scenic tour" before being positioned back for a second approach. That would of course not apply if an emergency was declared, but if that was the case it would lead to more questions and possibly some paperwork!

[Phileas Fogg]

HT,

Too many operators were taking the p1ss declaring fuel shortages to queue jump thus the rules were changed that they needed to declare either a PAN or a MAYDAY.

You're right that if there is significant holding traffic ATC might give them an estimate for their next approach whereas it's optimum to divert.

[Hotel Tango]

Well yes, but never mind the holding traffic (which eventually can make one extra hold), there's the traffic which is already being sequenced for, or is on, the approach. At some US airports that can mean a downwind leg extending some 30 or more miles during peaks. Been there and done it. :) ATC will only break that up for a declared emergency.