Virgin 'low fuel' MAYDAY

[late developer]

Originally Posted by frangatang

I do like the references to pop into the likes of cardiff,chuck on a few tons of fuel and away you go.It doesnt work! Land and you are stuffed,nothing happens until at least 8am.I know, l have done it,pax home by bus etc.

Well if you are referring to my post then I am glad you liked it! In my post I was making a report of my one and only transatlantic inbound flight - of fifteen years ago. Not sure what time of the morning it was but it was early October 1991 and it wasn't dark when we landed at Cardiff. We wondered then if buses would be rolled out, but they weren't. A few tonnes of fuel were indeed chucked on and away we indeed did go! The logistics might not work that way now. But that's the way it did then.

Originally Posted by bigbusdriver06

Late developer,
I would like to apologise on behalf of just a few of my "professional" colleagues who are so arrogant as to think a passenger's views are worthless. It doesn't matter what the truth is (and to your credit you are pretty near it), it's your perception as a customer that matters.

Thank you BBD06 but you don't need to apologise - just please try to influence your peers so they don't practice too much of what they see preached here sometimes! Of course I am pretty near the truth - because it doesn't take an ATPL to see it. I am not so green as I am cabbage-looking!

[sidtheesexist]

Originally Posted by anotherthing

Coracle...

The pilot is a very well paid, highly skilled person..

Hear, hear anotherthing, tho' I would suggest 'very' is inappropriate for most of us, and in my case, the 'highly' most definitely IS!! Seriously though, I doubt that many of 'our' beancounter managers view us in a similar light - and what of the travelling public too - do many just view us as glorified bus drivers??

A very interesting thread and I think I'm gonna have to dive into the manuals and brush up on one or two items.....

On the subject of expressing one's opinion - well I am often surprised at the 'conviction' with which some contributors post comments - and also the manner with which other's points are dismissed........I know that as pilots we are by nature quite a self-confident and outgoing bunch, but there is a fine line between an excess of confidence and downright arrogance.

[A330busdriver]

Recently a good friend of mine was promoted in a LO-CO. This paticular lo-co has a leaderboard in their operations department with the rankings of the most fuel efficeint captains. I think this is deplorable and amounts to little else other than pressure on crews who wish to carry above minimum flight plan fuel on any given occasion.

Some of the "advice" my friend was given during his command training in realtion to fuel, and delays (in the London TMA in paticular) was to declare a medical emergency if things were looking iffy, on the basis that such declarations are always granted and rarely ever followed up. On the other hand, PANs and Maydays are.

[spekesoftly]

Originally Posted by A330busdriver

Some of the "advice" my friend was given during his command training in realtion to fuel, and delays (in the London TMA in paticular) was to declare a medical emergency if things were looking iffy, on the basis that such declarations are always granted and rarely ever followed up. On the other hand, PANs and Maydays are.

Perhaps you should point out to your "friend" that wasting the time of the Ambulance Service, on a bogus medical emergency call-out, isn't very clever.

[411A]

I knew it.
Let the discussion go on long enough, and the ahhhh, 'min fuel at any cost' folks will come out of the woodwork, then find ways to manipulate the 'system'.
Now, QF and MAS were found out, but of course they are not British airlines.

I wonder....who's next?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Some of the "advice" my friend was given during his command training in realtion to fuel, and delays (in the London TMA in paticular) was to declare a medical emergency if things were looking iffy>>

One particular airline did that with such regularity that they were tumbled. I flew with that airline from Los Angeles to Heathrow a little later and a pax was taken quite ill. Incredibly we held for 20 minutes so the crew must have had the frighteners!

I can only ever recall Virgin and BA being short of fuel, never any other airlines. Is this still the case nowadays??

[120.4]

A330Bus

Identifying the lo-co in question would enable ATC to follow up every medical emergency they declare and that should stop the abuse.

HD

To be fair, bearing in mind that between them BA and VIR have about 45% of the slots into Heathrow, I guess it might appear that they have more occurrances than other carriers. BA still ran Captains league table as recently as 18 months or so ago. (They say they didn't but I know they did, cos I saw the books.) I understood that the CAA had outlawed such things?

.4

[Over+Out]

With reference to A330busdriver , 'medical emergency', is the same as 'fuel emergency'. It is not recognised in the UK.
For a no delay priority approach you have to declare either a PAN or a MAYDAY.
If you say to me 'fuel or medical emergency', I will say to you something like ''roger, what are your intentions?'' or '' Do you wish to decare a PAN?''

[Carnage Matey!]

Sssshhh......you'll spoil 411As great conspiracy/cover-up theory.

[shack]

<<I can only ever recall Virgin and BA being short of fuel, never any other airlines. Is this still the case nowadays??>>


Come, come Bren you must remember the trouble we had with the Aeroflot TU 104s, which led to a dipping of their fuel tanks!

[cwatters]

Sounds like the answer is to hit them where it hurts. Dip anyone who declares a fuel emergency plus a few arrivals selected at random. Anyone declaring a fuel emergency get double landing fees with a right of appeal.

[L337]

cwatters: 4 posts up it says

'medical emergency', is the same as 'fuel emergency'. It is not recognised in the UK.
For a no delay priority approach you have to declare either a PAN or a MAYDAY.
If you say to me 'fuel or medical emergency', I will say to you something like ''roger, what are your intentions?'' or '' Do you wish to decare a PAN?''

[cwatters]

Yes, I wasn't just thinking of the UK though.

Actually having thought about it a bit more.. I agree. It's either an emergency or it isn't. Not being able to hold is one step along the road to a potentially more serious problem.

[FlyGooseFly!]

Originally Posted by sidtheesexist

......I know that as pilots we are by nature quite a self-confident and outgoing bunch, but there is a fine line between an excess of confidence and downright arrogance.

I was once told by a true captain of industry - if you have someone is very good in a crisis - get rid of him because while he's with you - you'll always have one.

Now, this quip was meant for normal business operations rather than heavy drivers and I certainly wouldn't want to be in the choosing seat myself BUT!

As we rapidly approach the technical sophistication that marginalises the pilot to the guy that takes the blame when the thing crashes more than any functionality - the justification for the flight crew being there is for passenger comfort and assurance - however; I'm constantly amazed by the behavior of crew (particularly long served pilots ) that when faced with the very scenario the passengers hope to avoid by having a human doing the driving - they normally screw up.

We've had guys land on motorways after turning a working engine off, others taking off on a short dark runway when a lit up one was in sight and the one that tops the lot - the guy that took off into a landing flight because he was anxious to keep his slot and get home for his weekend off.

[Carnage Matey!]

Ok so thats three incidents. Now how about all the guys who've saved the aircraft when the technology has fouled up? Perhaps you don't hear about them because there isn't a smoking hole in the ground to film.

As we rapidly approach the technical sophistication that marginalises the pilot to the guy that takes the blame when the thing crashes more than any functionality

Really? I've flown some pretty whizz bang technology but I wouldn't say we were anywhere close to that level of sophistication. I usually find that the people who believe we are approaching such a level of sophistication usually don't fly the things and understand what they can and cannot do. I like to point them in the direction of that most advanced of UAVs, the Global Hawk, and remind them of how that has faired in Afghanistan. I believe it was three deployed and two destroyed. Do you fancy those sort of odds next time you go flying?

[A330busdriver]

I can't say much other that the operator concerned is a large airline, but is not UK based. I applaud the NATS for their manner in only providing priority to aircraft declaring a Pan or Mayday. There is far too much pressure in some airlines on crews to take minimal fuel even when common sense or local knowledge would suggest the prudent option would be to take increased fuel. It has happened to me in the past, and I know I 'm not the only one, where we've had another aircraft jump the arrival sequence due to a low fuel situation. In effect, these crews have managed to get to their destination on other crews holding fuel.

If the UK procedure of declaring a Pan or Mayday was more widely adopted it would help crews in airlines that fudge fuel issues.

[DownIn3Green]

Has anyone thought of this as a CRM thing?

When I was a new (less than 100 hrs in seat) F/O on the 727 for some reason we had a brand new (less than 100 hrs with the airline) F/E and a highly experienced Captain. (over 8,000 total hrs as PIC of jet transports)

However, he had less than 200 hrs on the 727.

We were headed from ATL to DCA, but because of weather we ended up holding near Richmond, VA.

Being primed for the standard ???'s via CRM, we all tried to agree on what fuel we had to leave the hold with.

After about 45 minutes, we reached that level, which by the way was higher than it needed to be if push came to shove, but while I was trying to get ATC to send us to Norfolk or Richmond and they kept giving us the old "stand=by", the Captain was communicating with Company via ARINC.

After 5 minutes or so he asked why we were still in the hold, with 200 lbs above our "CRM" decided comfort fuel, and I said I couldn't get a clearance anywhere.

He said, and I'll never forget this, "Turn to 240 and declare an emergency, tell 'em we're going to Richmond."

Could we have held longer...knowing what I do now, yes. With greenhorns in each of his 2 other seats, the wx doggie do-do all along the east coast, did that Captain make the right decision? YES.

Sooner or later that VS Captain has to make his first "solo" across the pond.

Sounds like good judgement to me.....

[captted]

Declaring an emergency.

Many years ago while I was flying left seat on the MD-80 for NWA we were trying to get into DTW. The clouds were loaded with water and it was cold enough to make ice with lumps. We were going downwind for an ILS approach folllowing a long line trying to get on the localizer for the approach. If we could climb just 1000 ft, we would be out of it, but the controllers, sitting in a nice room would not let us climb. We finally got into our slot and were tracking inbound, came almost to the outer marker when I heard British Air asking for a priority approach as they were icing up and needed down right now. The controller turned all of us on approach to get in line for another approach, I am trying to get in the communication, but can't. To say the least, I was very mad and that is putting mildly. We again had to fly out bound and get in another line for the approach, all this time we are packing ice. When we got on the ground, I went to our operations and called the tower to get that controller that did this to us. He said, "If you wanted to get in first you should have asked for priority. That is what the British guy did and he got away with it. I wouldn't have done that to all the guys in front of me. I finally got in touch with the British captain, he appoligized saying he has never seen that much ice on his airiplane and didn't know what else to do. Guess he never flew around the Great Lakes in the winter. Anyway, we don't use the priority, emergency because we don't want to fill all that paperwork and we don't want our fellow pilots to think we got into a situation that required the help on the ground. Well, I can tell you, I learned from the day, I use priority when ever I think it will make my flight safer. That is what it is for. Ted Wirch

[scroggs]

Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR

I can only ever recall Virgin and BA being short of fuel, never any other airlines. Is this still the case nowadays??

This reads to me as though you are trying to suggest that BA and Virgin use (or abuse) lower fuel minima than other airlines operating at Heathrow. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but, while I can't speak for BA's crews, I can categorically assure you that I am under no pressure to land with dangerously low levels of fuel. The minima that Virgin use are in excess of those mandated by ICAO and the CAA, and may be augmented as the Captain sees fit.

Circumstances can conspire to upset a perfectly acceptable and conservative fuel plan, and, as someone else has pointed out, arriving in the South-East Approaches after a very long sea crossing leaves one vulnerable to those circumstantial upsets. It is patently not sensible to carry fuel for every conceivable contingency - otherwise we'd never get airborne with less than full tanks, and we'd limit our maximum range to something ridiculous! Every fuel plan is a compromise between comfort, speed, time, cost and efficiency. As in all things, sometimes plans go wrong - and, though rarely, sometimes they go dreadfully - and unforeseeably - wrong. That's why we, and ATC, have procedures to deal with that eventuality. The procedures were exercised satisfactorily on this occasion, and the mandatory investigation will determine whether there are lessons to be learned from the circumstances and actions taken on that day, and will publish those lessons.

Until the facts are known in full, perhaps the armchair aviators - particularly those for whom an armchair is the nearest they ever get to commanding a large jet transport aircraft - will withold from casting aspersions about the crew involved.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<This reads to me as though you are trying to suggest that BA and Virgin use (or abuse) lower fuel minima than other airlines operating at Heathrow. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you, but, while I can't speak for BA's crews, I can categorically assure you that I am under no pressure to land with dangerously low levels of fuel. The minima that Virgin use are in excess of those mandated by ICAO and the CAA, and may be augmented as the Captain sees fit.>>

Scroggs.. . I made the statement recalling experience, but others have already disputed what I said and I accept that.

Edited to add: Before anyone jumps to conclusions - I have every confidence in the airlines I mentioned and fly with them both and no slur was intended..