Just enough fuel?

[Council Van]

Apparently an ATR 72 in Brazil had one engine fail on approach and the other on roll out possibly due to fuel starvation.

Incident: MAP AT72 at Manaus and Itaituba on Sep 16th 2019, engine failure in flight, other engine fails after touch down (http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd72878&opt=0)

MAP Linhas Aereas Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72-200, registration PR-MPY performing flight PAM-5913 from Itaituba,PA to Manaus,AM (Brazil) with 39 passengers and 4 crew, departed Itaituba for the about 260nm trip to Manaus. While enroute another aircraft caused Manaus Airport to close forcing the crew to return the aircraft back to Itaituba. While on final approach to Itaituba the left hand engine failed, after touch down at Itaituba the right hand engine failed, too.

Brazil's CENIPA reported the crew was able to restart the right hand engine and taxied the aircraft to the apron. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft. The occurrence, classified as "out of fuel" and rated a serious incident, is being investigated by CENIPA (editorial note: the initial note does not say anything about fuel remaining on board).

[Rated De]

Safely arm's length from the offending pilots the "management" pat themselves on the back for from an accounting perspective, the fuel paid for by the company met the requirements....just

[ironbutt57]

starvation or exhaustion?...

[staircase]

Some years ago before retirement, my management 'encouraged' plog fuel. One day I got back after a flight to see the fleet manager filling in a report to explain why he had shut down with less than the required minimum fuel. In conversation he said to me;

'who would have thought I would have had to fly the hold for so long at this time of day on a Saturday?'

My reply was me. I expected to hold, and indeed had carried some extra fuel on that day to do just that. I said that I made decisions based on the experience of flying 4 or 5 times a week, as opposed to flying a desk and only arriving at an aeroplane in order to keep currency.

I may add that I was way up the seniority list with months to got to retirement!

[ATC Watcher]

or an ATR42 gauge installed on a 72. it happened before .( Tuniter Sicily 2005)

[kiwi grey]

or an ATR42 gauge installed on a 72. it happened before .( Tuniter Sicily 2005)

You would have thought they might have fixed that one, so that no matter how big a hammer you used, you can't put an ATR42 gauge in a 72. Was there an AD on that?

[Landflap]

Staircase, you & a mate of mine probably worked for the same Cowboy outfit. Running out of fuel after landing was considered to be "allowable" under fuel planning criteria.

[parkfell]

Didn’t Concorde have a close shave once landing at LHR?

[CW247]

or an ATR42 gauge installed on a 72. it happened before .( Tuniter Sicily 2005)

Uhh we don't fly by gauges. In transport aviation, there's something called a flight plan which has a computed flight time endurance which equates to a fuel quantity required. Before the flight, we refuel and write the fuel uploaded down into the tech log and perform a sense check to determine we have indeed uploaded the expected fuel. Along the way way, we perform fuel checks to ensure there are no leaks or unexpected burn due to faulty engine parts. Equally, too much (excess) fuel is a sign something (maybe the gauge?) is wrong too. If we are nearing 30 mins flight time remaining (again according to the fuel checks, not the gauges), we issue a Mayday! There really isn't any excuse. This is going to turn out to be South American machismo on display again.

[CHfour]

Uhh we don't fly by gauges. In transport aviation, there's something called a flight plan which has a computed flight time endurance which equates to a fuel quantity required. Before the flight, we refuel and write the fuel uploaded down into the tech log and perform a sense check to determine we have indeed uploaded the expected fuel. Along the way way, we perform fuel checks to ensure there are no leaks or unexpected burn due to faulty engine parts. Equally, too much (excess) fuel is a sign something (maybe the gauge?) is wrong too. If we are nearing 30 mins flight time remaining (again according to the fuel checks, not the gauges), we issue a Mayday! There really isn't any excuse. This is going to turn out to be South American machismo on display again.
Most airlines do that but it's not fool proof. A Shorts 360 I flew many years ago was found to have over reading fuel gauges. Every time fuel was uplifted they increased by the correct amount as calculated by the litres x sg. Luckily it never flew below final reserve so we got away with it!

[blind pew]

IIRC Ice hockey match on TV in Geneva that everyone was watching which led to a made dash to make schedule which hadnt been refuelled.
Crew survived ( company requirement to be able to swim). Some Pax drowned as no life jackets.
Then there was the BEA Airtours 707 taxying in when a big red light illuminated " I say john whats that light for?" P3 "coz tge f##king motors stopped sir"
1970s.
Concorde incident lead to a permanent retirement.

[motley flight crue]

Yes, Concorde has a close shave in LHR in 1988. Landed with 25 mins fuel. Captain Brian Walpole, the poster boy for Concorde was grounded permanently by BA. they said he should have diverted to Shannon after a hydraulic problem.

[gearlever]

Yes, Concorde has a close shave in LHR in 1988. Landed with 25 mins fuel. Captain Brian Walpole, the poster boy for Concorde was grounded permanently by BA. they said he should have diverted to Shannon after a hydraulic problem.

Just read his Bio on wiki.
What a sad end for such a great career.....
5 min.... Ouch

[FlightDetent]

Uhh we don't fly by gauges. In transport aviation, (.....) There really isn't any excuse. This is going to turn out to be South American machismo on display again. If you really mean that in response to the ATR incident off Sicily, I suggest the report would be both thrilling and educative read, sir.

[ph-sbe]

Safely arm's length from the offending pilots the "management" pat themselves on the back for from an accounting perspective, the fuel paid for by the company met the requirements....just

Rumor has it that the crew already has an offer from RYR :)

[parkfell]

Do Ryanair still email those Captains (top 25%) monthly who take “too much” fuel.

[gearlever]

Do Ryanair still email those Captains (top 25%) monthly who take “too much” fuel.

What?

Are you joking?

[Rated De]

Do Ryanair still email those Captains (top 25%) monthly who take “too much” fuel.

Not only Ryan air.

Qantas "document" fuel carriage by pilots.
Pilots can see their "performance" on an app.

Naturally, the airline would never suggest less than needed, but fuel is one of the criteria "monitored"

One of the idiot office creeps was less than affectionately known as Scud: Always launch never sure where he would land.
Carrying the "company recommended" legal requirement won him favour of management, not so much of the poor souls forced to endure unscheduled night stops....
Fortunately for all that idiot is apparently a Deputy Chief Pilot. Much safer to sit at a desk

[gearlever]

Not only Ryan air.

Qantas "document" fuel carriage by pilots.
Pilots can see their "performance" on an app.

Naturally, the airline would never suggest less than needed, but fuel is one of the criteria "monitored"

One of the idiot office creeps was less than affectionately known as Scud: Always launch never sure where he would land.
Carrying the "company recommended" legal requirement won him favour of management, not so much of the poor souls forced to endure unscheduled night stops....
Fortunately for all that idiot is apparently a Deputy Chief Pilot. Much safer to sit at a desk

Ah, known as

Peter principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle)

[mustafagander]

Scud wasn't the only one either. Years ago we had a line Cpt known as vapors.

[From a distance]

Seems like most airlines have well known individuals who like to skimp on fuel. At a previous airline worked with a guy nicknamed “Skuba”. Seemed to think they were air tanks rather than fuel tanks.

[UAV689]

I fail to understand these so called “captains” that never elect to apply common sense and airmanship to the computed piece of paper’s fuel plan.

are they on a secret bonus scheme that rewards this mentality?

I was shown a picture of the gauges by an FO of landing below the 30 min final reserve, no mayday call, no minimum fuel call..the fo said he knew
something was wrong but was unable to verbalise it pr comprehend it being fresh out of training...

In answer to an above posters question, yes Ryr still publishes statistics for the skippers fuel burn, and has just recently started to write letters to captains asking them to explain their “over burn” on selected routes with an invitation to Dublin...how does the IAA still sit by and do nothing.....

[Longtimer]

Cause is stated as running out of fuel.
Ukraine plane crash: Five die as Antonov crash-lands near Lviv

5 hours ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49931753

[testpanel]

I once experienced the opposite: after I released the new captain, he became very company-minded.
There was a (minimum) flight plan fuel reward “system” in place....which he was “rewarded” for.....

Than, 1 day, surprise, too long at the holding point and got below min required.
He went back to stand, refueled and departed with more than 1 hour delay.

And flight time was around 2 hours, destination 2 separate runways with severe CAVOK conditions.

The guy was an ex military Eastern Europe bloke, changing to the civilian world.....😴😳

[DCP123]

Uhh we don't fly by gauges. In transport aviation, there's something called a flight plan which has a computed flight time endurance which equates to a fuel quantity required. Before the flight, we refuel and write the fuel uploaded down into the tech log and perform a sense check to determine we have indeed uploaded the expected fuel. Along the way way, we perform fuel checks to ensure there are no leaks or unexpected burn due to faulty engine parts. Equally, too much (excess) fuel is a sign something (maybe the gauge?) is wrong too. If we are nearing 30 mins flight time remaining (again according to the fuel checks, not the gauges), we issue a Mayday! There really isn't any excuse. This is going to turn out to be South American machismo on display again.
Congratulations. You're doing it right. Sadly, not everybody does. I've seen the consequences.

[FlightDetent]

I once experienced the opposite: after I released the new captain, he became very company-minded.
There was a (minimum) flight plan fuel reward “system” in place....which he was “rewarded” for.....

Than, 1 day, surprise, too long at the holding point and got below min required.
He went back to stand, refueled and departed with more than 1 hour delay.

And flight time was around 2 hours, destination 2 separate runways with severe CAVOK conditions.

The guy was an ex military Eastern Europe bloke, changing to the civilian world.....😴😳 Sounds like a case of insufficient training on the legalities of dispatch and WTF the company actually wants.

I find the idea that you can legally burn off CONT and ALTN fuel before actually taking off (EU rules, correct?) rather unsettling. Always hoped I'd be wrong in this respect, perhaps here's where I find out.

Anyways, 1x not a bad decision after a string of 3 that had been. Pitty your employer then decided to not afford civilized pilots with proper roots.

[Raffles S.A.]

One of the most useless things in aviation : the fuel you left behind.

[packapoo]

Story a little further up the page about an Antonov with just not enough fuel....

[Uplinker]

This is a pet hate of mine too. Taking barely enough fuel is just stupid and irresponsible. We are supposed to be safety conscious ! Do these idiots also drain the hydraulic systems down to minimum legal quantity for dispatch? Ditto Engine oil. Ditto CSU oil, ditto APU oil? - well it all weighs something and we have to carry extra fuel to carry the weight of those oils. Do they do the same in their own cars?

I heard of one prize tw@t in a previous airline who came back to the UK where SNOWTAMS had been issued; with PLOG +300kg, (A320/321). Another prize tw@t in another previous airline, well known for taking absolute minimum fuel wherever he went; decided to take just enough fuel for Guernsey. He couldn’t get in - twice - and just made it into Jersey before the weather clamped down there as well. When he was on stand and had shut down, his hands were trembling. Idiot. Irresponsible idiot

[B772]

Yes, Concorde has a close shave in LHR in 1988. Landed with 25 mins fuel. Captain Brian Walpole, the poster boy for Concorde was grounded permanently by BA. they said he should have diverted to Shannon after a hydraulic problem.

Ah, Brian Walpole barrel rolled Concorde.

[etudiant]

Yes, Concorde has a close shave in LHR in 1988. Landed with 25 mins fuel. Captain Brian Walpole, the poster boy for Concorde was grounded permanently by BA. they said he should have diverted to Shannon after a hydraulic problem.

I'd read someplace that Concorde got precleared to land at JFK at departure, because there was so little extra endurance, allegedly less than half an hour on arrival in New York. Is that an urban myth?

[West Coast]

Just read his Bio on wiki.
What a sad end for such a great career.....
5 min.... Ouch


That does seem a bit harsh. Wonder if there’s more to his career story that caused his grounding beyond 5 minutes of fuel?

Mentions he flew in the RAF but only spent 4 years in. Was that normal for the RAF in those days? Doesn’t seem like a lot of return on investment.

[Trebar]

25 minutes of fuel remaining? The aircraft was towed from a taxiway to the Concorde stand at Terminal 4.

[etudiant]

25 minutes of fuel remaining? The aircraft was towed from a taxiway to the Concorde stand at Terminal 4.

Perhaps the amount was 0.25 minutes of fuel remaining??

[N1EPR]

Sometime in the mid 1970s a PanAM 747 spent way too much time holding to get into JFK. He then diverted to EWR. Due to the complex traffic system in the New York area this 15 nm distance was extended to over 100 miles. Approaching EWR from the SW to land to the SW an engine flamed out. When the second engine flamed out they decided to land downwind to the NE and were cleared to do so. On approach the third engine flamed out. The fourth engine continued to run until he cleared the runway at the end, then flamed out.
When I taxied out shortly afterwards the plane still had not been towed in and it was truly an overwhelming sight.

[Trebar]

Perhaps the amount was 0.25 minutes of fuel remaining??

Perhaps? They landed on three engines.

[blind pew]

Lot more to it.
BA saw sense after a posse of first officers went to the top.
Dont think anyone shed a tear.

[pattern_is_full]

I'd read someplace that Concorde got precleared to land at JFK at departure, because there was so little extra endurance, allegedly less than half an hour on arrival in New York. Is that an urban myth?

Probably myth - the BA Concordes could reach Barbados, about an hour-longer flight (3:45 total). AF could reach Dakar (Africa) to refuel enroute Rio. So the tanks had plenty of reserve available.

Concorde may have had a more tightly scheduled "arrival window" for other special needs, though.

[Trebar]

Lot more to it.
BA saw sense after a posse of first officers went to the top.
Dont think anyone shed a tear.
Statements provided by the first officer and flight engineer did not make good reading.

[Dont Hang Up]

25 minutes of fuel remaining? The aircraft was towed from a taxiway to the Concorde stand at Terminal 4.
A CofG issue? Insufficient weight on the nose-wheel for safe taxi. At least that is what I was told.

[paulross]

Regarding Fuel, Concorde and Brian Walpole I realise that my remix of the famous PPrune Concorde thread (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html) omitted Brian Walpole due to a typo. I have fixed that and there is a small page about him accessible from the index page here: https://paulross.github.io/pprune-concorde/docs/index.html

Interestingly in the original PPrune thread there is an account of F-BTSD in February 2003 that made an emergency landing at Halifax with just taxy fuel: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-32.html#post6025418

[LeadSled]

Scud wasn't the only one either. Years ago we had a line Cpt known as vapors.
And ----- at his retirement ding, the DFO presented him with a Darwin stubby ( or some such large bottle) full of Jet A as a momento.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Sometime in the mid 1970s a PanAM 747 spent way too much time holding to get into JFK. He then diverted to EWR. Due to the complex traffic system in the New York area this 15 nm distance was extended to over 100 miles. Approaching EWR from the SW to land to the SW an engine flamed out. When the second engine flamed out they decided to land downwind to the NE and were cleared to do so. On approach the third engine flamed out. The fourth engine continued to run until he cleared the runway at the end, then flamed out.
When I taxied out shortly afterwards the plane still had not been towed in and it was truly an overwhelming sight.
Folks,
This and a number of essentially similar incidents over a relatively short time span resulted in Boeing publishing "Minimum fuel for approach" numbers for every type and variant.
It also resulted in ICAO introducing "fixed final reserve" into SARPs -- the minimum fuel in tanks on landing, enough to ensure all engines were still running ---- and a concept too many AU pilots dispute to this day.
Tootle pip!!

[Fonsini]

It strikes me that pilots are being placed into an increasingly difficult situation - land with excess and get a warning from management (esp. Ryanair) or land with less than mins and you get hit with a safety violation.

Doesn’t seem to leave much wriggle room for holds/delays/weather diverts etc. I would prefer that these management practices are not revealed in memos after a crash caused by fuel starvation....

[Uplinker]

Annoys me intensely that the same executives who demand minimum fuel - “to save money” - still pay themselves eye-watering, and frankly obscene amounts.

How come there is apparently enough money to pay executive salaries but not to put a sensible amount of fuel in their aircraft?

[frangatang]

Brian walpole OBE...over bovingdon empty, chalked up in the bogs the next morning at glasgow

[LeadSled]

Congratulations. You're doing it right. Sadly, not everybody does. I've seen the consequences.
DCP 123,
I do hope you and your mate CW247 are only flying MS Flight Sim.
"Not use the gauges" ---- really, truely?
Please give me a hint, so I can avoid ever having to travel pax on your outfit.
A little more knowledge on how aircraft flowmeters and contents gauges have been certified in the last 40 or so years might also help.
To borrow from a military maxim: "The plan of battle rarely survives the first encounter with the enemy".
Funnily enough, flight plans are quite widely used, not just by airlines.
Tootle pip!!

[Rated De]

It strikes me that pilots are being placed into an increasingly difficult situation - land with excess and get a warning from management (esp. Ryanair) or land with less than mins and you get hit with a safety violation.

Doesn’t seem to leave much wriggle room for holds/delays/weather diverts etc. I would prefer that these management practices are not revealed in memos after a crash caused by fuel starvation....

There always is wiggle room.
The pilot in command carries strict liability. Practically this means there is only one person responsible.
Company manuals, Company made plots of fuel carried versus peer pilots and the like seek to push an agenda.
Heck, an Australian carrier "encourages" all pilots to review on the company "app" fuel ordering.
The First Officer up for a promotion can be "managed" that way too.

At the end of the day, Pilot in Command means just that.
Statute empowers the PIC to do the right thing, not the commercially expedient.

[LeadSled]

There always is wiggle room.
The pilot in command carries strict liability. Practically this means there is only one person responsible.
Company manuals, Company made plots of fuel carried versus peer pilots and the like seek to push an agenda.
Heck, an Australian carrier "encourages" all pilots to review on the company "app" fuel ordering.
The First Officer up for a promotion can be "managed" that way too.

At the end of the day, Pilot in Command means just that.
Statute empowers the PIC to do the right thing, not the commercially expedient.

Folks,
That's it, in a nutshell!!
Tootle pip!!

[Landflap]

Mate of mine kept doing "the right thing" but was placed under immense pressure for not towing the company line which was, for example, to fly the N Atlantic in a big twin with 5% of the last hour's fuel burn for contingency (honestly, because it was an ERA operation and the rules permitted it (!) ). In some cowboy outfits, keep doing the "right thing" as a professional Commander and you could be walking the streets. As a true pro, he walked, joined a proper outfit & never looked back.

[George Glass]

Funny how minimum fuel types end up drinking by themselves on overnights and never join the dots.

[VFR Only Please]

(...) Ryr still publishes statistics for the skippers fuel burn, and has just recently started to write letters to captains asking them to explain their “over burn” on selected routes with an invitation to Dublin...how does the IAA still sit by and do nothing.....

OK, this and a hundred other things I've heard about Ryanair. Can anyone explain why they haven't had a Major Disaster? Divine Suspension of the Law of Gravity?

[OMAAbound]

Funnily enough, I was watching Ice Pilots NWT a few weeks ago, and they were delivering water bombers to South Korea.

When it came to refuelling the aircraft in Korea, Justin Simle asked the Koreans why they’d only brought 10 drums of gas, and the response was ‘the journey only needs 10 drums’ he was livid!

OMAA

[jbsharpe]

Curious SLF here, how come Walpole ended up with insufficient fuel? Was it always a relatively close run thing with Concorde?