Is this just sensationalist reporting?
 

The following article has just appeared on my Facebook feed:

Jet2 planes declare emergencies as storm rages over Ibiza, Majorca and Malaga | Daily Mail Online

Did these planes really "declare emergencies" or is this just another example of the appalling standard of journalism typical of the Daily Mail?

I find it rather unlikely that even one aircraft would be put in a position to have to declare an emergency due to weather in that region, let alone three from the same airline! I suspect it was simply a case of planes being unable to land at their scheduled destination (which is not even newsworthy), but can anyone confirm this?

Possibly a fuel issue. Still legal but in a "we have no time for the scenic route" scenario?

Is this just sensationalist reporting?
 

I believe multiple planes (including one Easyjet) did skwak 7700 and diverted this morning

Please do not link to any daily fail article. Any click through just adds to their obscene advertising charges, and keeps them in business.

Boycott the daily fail, not a friend to the industry.

Big Harvey

I wasn't there so I don't know if fuel was the reason(I guess it was and that Hotel Tango has it correct) HOWEVER here is a little light reading on the expected actions where an aircraft will land with less than the PLANNED reserves.

Fuel Emergencies: Guidance for Controllers - SKYbrary Aviation Safety

I was flying around that area that day. The weather was horrendous with a lot of delays. There were a lot of convective weather all around the coast and islands.

Actually... around Madrid too.

(Valencia - Madrid - Santander - Ibiza - Girona)

Thanks for your responses.

Sounds like it was a really big weather system, not just in terms of severity but size also, and everyone from controllers to aircrew must have genuinely had their hands full keeping everyone safe. Well done to all concerned.

Re. ExXB's post, the reason I was seeking comments was that I don't like to receive Daily Mail articles on my Facebook feed, so (as with stuff from Britain First and the like) I'm always anxious to find out the facts in order to refute what is written where possible. It is a nasty, spiteful publication with so many targets for its hatred that even most of its readership must find themselves in the firing line from time to time.

Unfortunately a distressingly large percentage of the population continues to have its opinions formed by the poison it pumps out.

And the industry is not a friend to the passengers it conveys. I have no love for the Daily Mail and never read it, but the airlines put themselves in the position to be criticised by it and other publications.

Jet2's 737s often have fuel 'issues' on the long bucket-and-spade runs when the winds are stronger than normal. No surprise that they had to squawk en masse this time given the conditions. Hardly a surprise to anyone in the airline I'm sure.

I was sailing around Mallorca, and it was truly awful that day.Never seen rain like it in 16 years holidaying there. Huge CBs, hail,torrential rain. We ran for harbour and tied up for a few days.

El Bunto what kind of fuel issues are you talking about?

So Jet2's fuel policy works over 90% of the time - not bad at all! :)

There simply isn't enough margin on bucket-and-spede tickets to allow for aircraft to carry an abundance of fuel each trip 'just in case'.

So, mandate additional reserves (so that all operators MUST comply) and add a few quid to the air fare. Simple. Next please.

So carry all that extra fuel unnecessarily except for those rare occasions when you need it or divert rarely?

Clever.

Depends how much extra "extra" is. I'm not advocating excess, simply returning to the better practices of earlier years. There are always exceptions, but generally the world is now full of ignorant bean counters seriously discouraging any use of common sense and cutting everything to the bare legal minimum. It's only a matter of time before it will one day end in a major tragedy. Perhaps these legal minimums need to be revised?

Doesn't matter what the legal minimum is though as we can carry any extra when we need to. Which is better than carrying the extra all the time.

Carrying minimum fuel won't result in major tragedy, mismanaging the situation will. I'd quite happily leave with less than the mandated minimum tomorrow, nothing unsafe about that.

"There simply isn't enough margin on bucket-and-spede tickets to allow for aircraft to carry an abundance of fuel each trip 'just in case'."

Says who? On routes down to the Balearics and Iberian Peninsula there is plenty of capacity to cart additional fuel if so desired, and we have full authority to take what we feel is suitable when the conditions dictate, NO QUESTIONS!

The fact that these aircraft needed to "declare an emergency" would most likely be due to the fact that having held a while prior to diverting, or having flown a missed approach prior to diverting, then finding that their divert is suffering similar nasty conditions and having to divert again, combined with lots of other aircraft diverting left right and centre would cause ATC meltdown! The best way of making sure that you aren't then caught with your pants down is to ensure ATC are fully aware of your situation and to get yourself some sort of priority.

In answer to the original question, this is absolutely sensationalist reporting designed to do nothing other than attract readers regardless if any damage that the story could do to a companies reputation.

Johhny FP
 

Don't think a captain's right to carry more fuel if required ever came into question? We are at cross purposes.

Parabellum
 

I was not attempting to say that you were insinuating that we were restricted with fuel, it came across wrongly, sorry.

Quite a number of years ago it would be a semi-regular occurrence that aircraft would declare a fuel emergency whilst skepticism was put upon those that did were merely queue jumping.

So the powers that be decided that in the event of low fuel then a PAN or a MAYDAY should be declared and in this day and age we have online 'ambulance chasers' just waiting for a 7700 squawk and the opportunity that lives may be at risk.

We have no choice other than to declare an emergency whenever we believe we will be landing with less than final reserve fuel. The timing of that can vary, depending on circumstances but often that happens when you are being dicked about by ATC who won't give realistic information or specific times. But as this call depends on your actual fuel state, it doesn't matter what fuel you started with. So don't let the anti-minimum brigade tell you otherwise. What a Mayday call does is grab ATC's full attention and as a result (normally), give you real numbers you can work with - even if it is for a diversion. As for the reporting, does it make a better story if you land with 23 minutes or 19 minutes remaining fuel? And his would they find this out? Not from me they wouldn't. Or is it the word "Emergency" which allows them to use their aviation terms such as panic, scream, air-pocket, near-miss etc.?

PM