Media hysteria on low fuel states in 3, 2, 1...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: By a river
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Thank you sir, I am somewhat familiar and the question still stands, no matter the cost of uplift etc. I am not talking about full fuel necessarily on every flight but fuel, as you sid, should happen, at commanders discretion. If the bcs are running the show, what about this wonderful new world of SMS thinking, where the commanders input should reflect his sound decision for safety reasons.
Safety is dollars whether you implement it or you don't. We are all afraid to discuss dollars and safety but it is a harsh fact. If commanders continuously give in to the bcs on fuel load, the stress factors with that crew are nudging the holes in the cheese closer to alignment.
I would like to think that the commanders make their decisions based on what fuel they want but this discussion only shows the pressure they are under to carry less.
Again, so much for SMS.
carholme
Thank you sir, I am somewhat familiar and the question still stands, no matter the cost of uplift etc. I am not talking about full fuel necessarily on every flight but fuel, as you sid, should happen, at commanders discretion. If the bcs are running the show, what about this wonderful new world of SMS thinking, where the commanders input should reflect his sound decision for safety reasons.
Safety is dollars whether you implement it or you don't. We are all afraid to discuss dollars and safety but it is a harsh fact. If commanders continuously give in to the bcs on fuel load, the stress factors with that crew are nudging the holes in the cheese closer to alignment.
I would like to think that the commanders make their decisions based on what fuel they want but this discussion only shows the pressure they are under to carry less.
Again, so much for SMS.
carholme
Psychophysiological entity
Rainboe says
Well, okay, probably too much of a generalization across companies, and I'm not talking about being a flying tanker, but I know what it used to cost us to divert. It was all the ongoing costs that added up..the logistics as they say today. It just wiped any savings I could make.
Objection! Unsubstantiated claim!
Well, okay, probably too much of a generalization across companies, and I'm not talking about being a flying tanker, but I know what it used to cost us to divert. It was all the ongoing costs that added up..the logistics as they say today. It just wiped any savings I could make.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carholme - I hope I did not give the impression that many of us take any notice of the bcs?
Just one of the 'pressures' we are under.
I'm not familiar with 'SMS' other than mobile text messages. Is it 'Safety Management System'?
Just one of the 'pressures' we are under.I'm not familiar with 'SMS' other than mobile text messages. Is it 'Safety Management System'?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil Space:
What about the Avianca 707 that ran out of fuel going in to JFK in 1990?
What about the Avianca 707 that ran out of fuel going in to JFK in 1990?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting to consider the views in this thread and others which relate to media / public perception of our industry, with a management report comparing several high risk industries. Of note for aviation, there is the lack of “a framework for incorporating societal values/concerns into safety related decisions” and the lack of “positive management of the media and transparency of safety related decision making”. These are the conclusions in comparrison with the Underground Railway, Food, Oil & Gas, and Nuclear industries.
Perhaps many of the ‘media’ problems are of our own making, particularly as aviation is a very safe industry and at times taken for granted. Are we complacent? Is there more that aviation could / should be doing to improve the media / public perception of safety.
As for complacency; we supposedly have SMS, CRM, HF etc, but in comparison with the industry-based oil & gas initiative “Step Change for
Safety”, are we really as safety orientated, or standardized as we think are?
Ref:Decision-making practices and lessons from other industries. Follow link at T266
SMS, HF Refs:- Step Change for Safety.
and Energy Institute, HF.
Perhaps many of the ‘media’ problems are of our own making, particularly as aviation is a very safe industry and at times taken for granted. Are we complacent? Is there more that aviation could / should be doing to improve the media / public perception of safety.
As for complacency; we supposedly have SMS, CRM, HF etc, but in comparison with the industry-based oil & gas initiative “Step Change for
Safety”, are we really as safety orientated, or standardized as we think are?
Ref:Decision-making practices and lessons from other industries. Follow link at T266
SMS, HF Refs:- Step Change for Safety.
and Energy Institute, HF.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: By a river
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC;
Yes, SMS is Safety Management Systems and though it is indeed a valuable business tool, it is not the saviour, our regulatory agencies would have us believe, especially those trying to manadate it. There are enough reports from crews who actually do suffer the bc pressure. We are all human and though our intellect should remove us from that pressure, we all have to put food on the table.
Regulatory agencies and companies who adopt SMS quite often are those that do not yet incorporate either SMS or Human Factors thinking into their business model. They incorporate the systems but do not employ the process and there are many of them.
carholme
Yes, SMS is Safety Management Systems and though it is indeed a valuable business tool, it is not the saviour, our regulatory agencies would have us believe, especially those trying to manadate it. There are enough reports from crews who actually do suffer the bc pressure. We are all human and though our intellect should remove us from that pressure, we all have to put food on the table.
Regulatory agencies and companies who adopt SMS quite often are those that do not yet incorporate either SMS or Human Factors thinking into their business model. They incorporate the systems but do not employ the process and there are many of them.
carholme
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps somewhat as thread creep to the topic in question...
That's very true. And I kid you not when I say that some modern day Directors, when asked what is the most important thing they can think of in respect as to how they run their business, respond with the answer "Profit!" 
Perhaps the following phrase should be on a poster on the wall of every boardroom:
They incorporate the systems but do not employ the process and there are many of them.
Perhaps the following phrase should be on a poster on the wall of every boardroom:
"If you think safety's expensive?... Try having an accident !"
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where its at
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I kid you not when I say that some modern day Directors, when asked what is the most important thing they can think of in respect as to how they run their business, respond with the answer "Profit!"
And ........?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If you think safety's expensive?... Try having an accident !"
They've discovered that the public's memory is incredibly short, and that once an airline has passed a critical size and has achieved a certain level of brand recognition, the public will soon forget if that airline suffers a hull loss.
Don't believe me? I won't name the airline here for obvious reasons - (I don't want to see Danny or me get a letter from a lawyer) - but I'm sure (or at least I hope!!!) that the professionals reading this will remember the well known SE Asian airline that lost a 747 when the crew attempted to take off on a closed runway at Taipei a few years ago.
Ask three of your non-aviation friends if they would
(a) consider that airline one of the safer airlines to fly with,
(b) would fly with that airline, and
(c) if they recall that particular accident, where passengers were killed.
You may be surprised at the answers you will get.
There is a lot of talk about "safety" vs. "fuel carriage" but I don't think they are that much related. If you are planning a flight under JAR and Company SOPs then there will be a certain minimum (legal) amount of fuel that is deemed "safe" to operate that sector. Most of the effect of loading more fuel is simply to delay the decision to go somewhere else.
As I pointed out on the other thread on this subject, it's more about what your plans A,B,C...Z are for when you do get uncomfortable about your fuel state, with how much you loaded at the beginning being irrelevant.
Looking back at some of the (rare) instances where commercial transports have run dry in the air, there appear to have been safe landing options available to the crew almost up to the last minute but for whatever reason (distraction, press-on-itis, CRM problems) they weren't taken up.
It might be argued, in poor weather, that more fuel to enable a selection of alternates increases the level of safety but if your destination and primary alternate have gone bad with minimum fuel, there's the option to land short somewhere else and wait it out.
I'm not saying that there is no safety advantage in carrying more fuel, just that it is a much more commercially based decision than the lay observer might think.
As I pointed out on the other thread on this subject, it's more about what your plans A,B,C...Z are for when you do get uncomfortable about your fuel state, with how much you loaded at the beginning being irrelevant.
Looking back at some of the (rare) instances where commercial transports have run dry in the air, there appear to have been safe landing options available to the crew almost up to the last minute but for whatever reason (distraction, press-on-itis, CRM problems) they weren't taken up.
It might be argued, in poor weather, that more fuel to enable a selection of alternates increases the level of safety but if your destination and primary alternate have gone bad with minimum fuel, there's the option to land short somewhere else and wait it out.
I'm not saying that there is no safety advantage in carrying more fuel, just that it is a much more commercially based decision than the lay observer might think.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More un-informed tosh on this site.
Regulatory fuel planning requirements are stated at the start of this thread. This is generally plenty of fuel to carry.
There are procedures in place if you are getting low on fuel.
If you think you will land with less than final reserve.......PAN
If you know you will land with less than final reserve.......MAYDAY
For those that suggest captains no longer have the authority to take the fuel they want.....RUBBISH (certainly in my company).
I take what I want! I also don't have to justify this on the plog!
Fortunately I am a PROFESSIONAL pilot, and as such I have a responsibility to carry the correct amount of fuel. Therefore I don't carry extra fuel for the sake of it. I carry min fuel plus whatever I consider necessary (if any) based on en-route Wx, Wx at dest, time of arrival, A/C I'm on (as some a/c burn more fuel than others).
Carrying MIN fuel does not decrease safety, but it might just increase your chances of diverting if you haven't taken all factors into consideration.
By the way, it is also our responsibility to fly at the right levels (taking jet streams into account), at economic cruising speeds, and get short cuts to reduce track mileage (where practicable)
Regulatory fuel planning requirements are stated at the start of this thread. This is generally plenty of fuel to carry.
There are procedures in place if you are getting low on fuel.
If you think you will land with less than final reserve.......PAN
If you know you will land with less than final reserve.......MAYDAY
For those that suggest captains no longer have the authority to take the fuel they want.....RUBBISH (certainly in my company).
I take what I want! I also don't have to justify this on the plog!
Fortunately I am a PROFESSIONAL pilot, and as such I have a responsibility to carry the correct amount of fuel. Therefore I don't carry extra fuel for the sake of it. I carry min fuel plus whatever I consider necessary (if any) based on en-route Wx, Wx at dest, time of arrival, A/C I'm on (as some a/c burn more fuel than others).
Carrying MIN fuel does not decrease safety, but it might just increase your chances of diverting if you haven't taken all factors into consideration.
By the way, it is also our responsibility to fly at the right levels (taking jet streams into account), at economic cruising speeds, and get short cuts to reduce track mileage (where practicable)
Last edited by gatbusdriver; 11th Nov 2007 at 19:31.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: By a river
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gatbusdriver;
Carrying MIN fuel does not decrease safety, but it might just increase your chances of diverting if you haven't taken all factors into consideration.
Sir;
I am sure nobody would disagree with the fact that MIN fuel does not decrease safety, the alternative being that it does not increase safety.
But how does that INCREASE your chances of diverting, no matter what the factors are?
Carholme
Carrying MIN fuel does not decrease safety, but it might just increase your chances of diverting if you haven't taken all factors into consideration.
Sir;
I am sure nobody would disagree with the fact that MIN fuel does not decrease safety, the alternative being that it does not increase safety.
But how does that INCREASE your chances of diverting, no matter what the factors are?
Carholme
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...of course we really need to establish what 'gbd' means by 'MIN FUEL' - is it
1) the minimum required for a safe and sensible operation on that flight or
2) is it the company generated PLOG figure?
I propose if 1) it does not increase, if 2) it does. Reason for 2)? With any adverse event, eg wind/levels/holding/routing you are firstly into contingency fuel and then into 'do I commit or divert'. 1) gives you that buffer (eg 'no delay' into LHR - and those 20 minutes holding kgs are in the tanks)
1) the minimum required for a safe and sensible operation on that flight or
2) is it the company generated PLOG figure?
I propose if 1) it does not increase, if 2) it does. Reason for 2)? With any adverse event, eg wind/levels/holding/routing you are firstly into contingency fuel and then into 'do I commit or divert'. 1) gives you that buffer (eg 'no delay' into LHR - and those 20 minutes holding kgs are in the tanks)
Fortunately I am a PROFFESSIONAL pilot, and as such I have a responsibility to carry the correct amount of fuel. Therefore I don't carry extra fuel for the sake of it. I carry min fuel plus whatever I consider necessary (if any) based on en-route Wx, Wx at dest, time of arrival, A/C I'm on (as some a/c burn more fuel than others).
Only time I have diverted in 4 years command, was on a forecast cavok day which I added 30 mins due to it being a summer weekend day with visual approaches at LGW. Weather ended up as BKN 900 ft with SRAs. After EAT had gone back for the fifth time to a 40 min total delay I decided that landing was not assured and diverted to land at BOH with a few 100 kgs above FRF. If I had taken flight plan fuel I would have still diverted to BOH but would have saved 30 mins holding fuel and 30 mins less delay. The safety level in both cases would be identical. It is not about how much extra fuel you take, it is all about the command decision making when fuel tends towards minimum reserves!
A commander's comfort level with carrying the dispatcher's planned fuel amount can be greatly affected by his comfort level with the flight dispatch system in place in the airline. If the system ensures that the flight plans calculate fuel for each aircraft based on its actual fuel burn; if it ensures that relevant factors such as expected delays are considered during the planning stage; and if it ensures that the choice of alternate airport(s) is sensible for both operational and commercial considerations; then it is much easier to take flight plan fuel. If the commander feels that some of these have not been properly accounted for, they should take the time to review their concerns with the dispatcher so that they understand the reason(s) for taking extra fuel. Then, it's up to the crew to monitor flight progress consistently and seriously so that they are aware of their fuel status and the weather enroute and at destination at all times.
The only other thing I would add is this...
How many major accidents have occurred on the third approach to an airport with crap weather, particularly in cultures where not getting there is considered a sign of personal weakness? One has to wonder if those folks would still be alive had they only taken enough fuel for one approach at the destination and then been forced to divert to a proper alternate. But then again, that assumes that they would not allow their cultural biases to cloud their command decisions.
The only other thing I would add is this...
How many major accidents have occurred on the third approach to an airport with crap weather, particularly in cultures where not getting there is considered a sign of personal weakness? One has to wonder if those folks would still be alive had they only taken enough fuel for one approach at the destination and then been forced to divert to a proper alternate. But then again, that assumes that they would not allow their cultural biases to cloud their command decisions.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cahholme;
For example:
Night Corfu in Oct, TS are very common. 40/50 mins holding out at the KRK is very common on these nights during the rush hour. If you carry PLOG (MIN) fuel, you might as well go straight to Athens.
That was all I meant. If you carry PLOG fuel when other factors suggest it is sensible to carry more, you increase your chances of diverting. Would safety be decreased in this instance....I don't think so.
I am sure nobody would disagree with the fact that MIN fuel does not decrease safety, the alternative being that it does not increase safety.
But how does that INCREASE your chances of diverting, no matter what the factors are?
But how does that INCREASE your chances of diverting, no matter what the factors are?
Night Corfu in Oct, TS are very common. 40/50 mins holding out at the KRK is very common on these nights during the rush hour. If you carry PLOG (MIN) fuel, you might as well go straight to Athens.
That was all I meant. If you carry PLOG fuel when other factors suggest it is sensible to carry more, you increase your chances of diverting. Would safety be decreased in this instance....I don't think so.
Last edited by gatbusdriver; 11th Nov 2007 at 12:44. Reason: just seen JO's post. couldn't agree more
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
I suspect that the min fuel regulations were drafted before getting in and out of most major airports became remarkably similar to joining the M25 on a good day. Add a bit of Wx to the mix, and a fuel emergency is guaranteed to cause massive disruption at most ATC facilities, due to the volume of traffic alone. A study on the correlation between fuel emergencies and arrival rates at airports might be more meaningful than castigating the carriers for loading the legal fuel load.
"I notice also that they didn't use the word "dispatcher" once. I guess all that fuel gets on the aircraft all by itself"
Did the dispatcher pump the fuel as well? I have a suspicion as to why no one ever mentions dispatchers, but I don't think you'll like it.
Did the dispatcher pump the fuel as well? I have a suspicion as to why no one ever mentions dispatchers, but I don't think you'll like it.