Media hysteria on low fuel states in 3, 2, 1...
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
Media hysteria on low fuel states in 3, 2, 1...
Now look what you started. If only there was some kind of mandatory regulation for fuel loads on IFR flights.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3837945&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3837945&page=1
Danger in the Sky: Underfueled Planes
As oil prices soar, it may mean that some airlines may soon not be. United Airlines has announced it may have to ground 100 planes because gas has become so expensive.
An investigation by WABC-NY reporter Jim Hoffer found that some airlines might be trying to cut costs by lightening the load and flying with less fuel. But that has put some flights and passengers at risk.
In April, a pilot on a commercial plane entering New York airspace contacted air traffic control to say that his aircraft was running low on fuel.
The recorded conversation between the pilot and air traffic controllers offered a chilling glimpse into the potential dangers in commercial air travel.
Pilot: "We are minimum fuel, sir."
Air traffic controller: "You're declaring an emergency at this time. The time is now 22:57. I need the souls on board and fuel in pounds when you arrive."
Pilot: "Copy that. One hundred fifty-seven souls on board. We have exactly 38 minutes of fuel remaining."
Controllers gave the plane priority landing and it safely touched down with just minutes of fuel remaining.
As oil prices soar, it may mean that some airlines may soon not be. United Airlines has announced it may have to ground 100 planes because gas has become so expensive.
An investigation by WABC-NY reporter Jim Hoffer found that some airlines might be trying to cut costs by lightening the load and flying with less fuel. But that has put some flights and passengers at risk.
In April, a pilot on a commercial plane entering New York airspace contacted air traffic control to say that his aircraft was running low on fuel.
The recorded conversation between the pilot and air traffic controllers offered a chilling glimpse into the potential dangers in commercial air travel.
Pilot: "We are minimum fuel, sir."
Air traffic controller: "You're declaring an emergency at this time. The time is now 22:57. I need the souls on board and fuel in pounds when you arrive."
Pilot: "Copy that. One hundred fifty-seven souls on board. We have exactly 38 minutes of fuel remaining."
Controllers gave the plane priority landing and it safely touched down with just minutes of fuel remaining.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one major us carrier always went min. fuel to KSFO whenever there was holding.
ATC got wise and whenever they declared "min fuel" , the answer was, EXPECT VECTORS TO RUNWAY 29 AT OAKLAND (ACROSS THE BAY FROM SFO).
The FAA won't do anything, so perhaps the airlines can be shamed into doing the right thing.
ATC got wise and whenever they declared "min fuel" , the answer was, EXPECT VECTORS TO RUNWAY 29 AT OAKLAND (ACROSS THE BAY FROM SFO).
The FAA won't do anything, so perhaps the airlines can be shamed into doing the right thing.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here we go again:
1. to WABC-NY reporter Jim Hoffer:
Go research cookie recepies, you might be succesfull there, don't write about things, you don't know or are unwilling to research completely...
2. to Two's In: There is a mandatory regulation:
The fuel required at take off consists of the following:
3. to sevenstrokeroll: Good job by the SFO controllers, they won't be fooled by some wining.
Alltogether I want to say, it is perfectly safe and legal to fly with minimum fuel. You get to your destination, the holdings are full, you divert and get to your alternate. If you have uplifted only minimum, you shouldbe at your last 30 min of fuel. JAA (I don't know about US regs) require the commander to call in an emergency at this very moment (30 mins left). Still legal, safe, running as the system is designed. The mayday will get you priority over other a/c approaching your alternate.
Of course you will be in the papers, a mayday call just sounds too scary in the ears of all the groundhogs out there...
And flying to SFO, then diverting to OAK because you only took minimum on a regular bases, will cost so much money, that the management of that airline wil surely learn that it's chepaer to put a couple tons of extra into the planes.
NIC
edit: Altflaps had posted, while I was typing:
4. to AltFlaps: I agree with you completely!!!
1. to WABC-NY reporter Jim Hoffer:
Go research cookie recepies, you might be succesfull there, don't write about things, you don't know or are unwilling to research completely...
2. to Two's In: There is a mandatory regulation:
The fuel required at take off consists of the following:
- trip fuel (fuel required to fly from A to B, including approach)
- contingency fuel (usually 5% of trip fuel, for unforseen increase in consumption, e.g. unfavorable windchange... - other regulations may apply)
- alternate fuel (fuel required to fly to an alternate airport, where weather is forecast ok)
- 30 min of holding fuel 1500' over alternate elevation
3. to sevenstrokeroll: Good job by the SFO controllers, they won't be fooled by some wining.
Alltogether I want to say, it is perfectly safe and legal to fly with minimum fuel. You get to your destination, the holdings are full, you divert and get to your alternate. If you have uplifted only minimum, you shouldbe at your last 30 min of fuel. JAA (I don't know about US regs) require the commander to call in an emergency at this very moment (30 mins left). Still legal, safe, running as the system is designed. The mayday will get you priority over other a/c approaching your alternate.
Of course you will be in the papers, a mayday call just sounds too scary in the ears of all the groundhogs out there...
And flying to SFO, then diverting to OAK because you only took minimum on a regular bases, will cost so much money, that the management of that airline wil surely learn that it's chepaer to put a couple tons of extra into the planes.
NIC
edit: Altflaps had posted, while I was typing:
4. to AltFlaps: I agree with you completely!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You got it wrong, read again:
When flying on minimum you don't divert after 30 minutes, you divert instantly if there is any delay at destination.
reaching your alternate, you have a so called final reserve of 30 mins and going into that, you have to declare an emergency.
I sugget you all do some research in the relevant, publically available laws and regulations, then form an opinion and then post. It's like on the radio: Think, Push, Talk...
Nic
PS: I am going to Grandma's with the Kids, so I will resume posting tomorrow night.
When flying on minimum you don't divert after 30 minutes, you divert instantly if there is any delay at destination.
reaching your alternate, you have a so called final reserve of 30 mins and going into that, you have to declare an emergency.
I sugget you all do some research in the relevant, publically available laws and regulations, then form an opinion and then post. It's like on the radio: Think, Push, Talk...
Nic
PS: I am going to Grandma's with the Kids, so I will resume posting tomorrow night.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latenite, That being irrelevant for the discussion on fuel required.
Remember, there are some seriously stupid people about to get on the band wagon based on the initial report.
For their benefit, this needs to be kept very very simple.
1. There are regulations about the minimum fuel you need to carry. SAFETY
2. There are regulations for what you do when you get to destination. SAFETY
3. An aircraft only has tanks of a certain size. DESIGN
4. Carrying excessive amounts of fuel simply leads to burning more fuel for the privelege. WASTAGE.
5. There are regulations about what you do if you think you may begin burning your reserves. SAFETY.
Mr Travelling public, and Mr ignorant Journo. An analogy. You drive from A-B. If you need half of one tank of fuel, and you fill up the fuel tank completely, your fuel consumption increases. Why? Because the car is heavier. When you get to destination, you will have a lot of fuel left. You carried this fuel unnecessarily. Over the year, this will amount to several pounds/dollars/euros spent for no reason at all.
Believe me. The pilots and regulators know more about this than you do!
Remember, there are some seriously stupid people about to get on the band wagon based on the initial report.
For their benefit, this needs to be kept very very simple.
1. There are regulations about the minimum fuel you need to carry. SAFETY
2. There are regulations for what you do when you get to destination. SAFETY
3. An aircraft only has tanks of a certain size. DESIGN
4. Carrying excessive amounts of fuel simply leads to burning more fuel for the privelege. WASTAGE.
5. There are regulations about what you do if you think you may begin burning your reserves. SAFETY.
Mr Travelling public, and Mr ignorant Journo. An analogy. You drive from A-B. If you need half of one tank of fuel, and you fill up the fuel tank completely, your fuel consumption increases. Why? Because the car is heavier. When you get to destination, you will have a lot of fuel left. You carried this fuel unnecessarily. Over the year, this will amount to several pounds/dollars/euros spent for no reason at all.
Believe me. The pilots and regulators know more about this than you do!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to the other thread?
I was about to post...
I whole-heartedly agree. There is evidence that wake vortex is being persistently breached as traffic crosses "over" to go on the other side. As you well know, minimum spacing is 3nm on the parallels but Heavy-Heavy vortex is 4nm. One cannot achieve 3nm spacing and provide the correct vortex separation if continually crossing over on the correct glide path; each flight is required to pass 500' above what the preceding was at that point and so in no time you end up too high to make an approach.
The crossover on final approach should be stopped for exactly the same reasons that the DAP will not support its introduction at a 2 runway Stansted nor will they sanction a Terminal Departures (crossover on departure) Mixed-mode operation.
Once Terminal 5 is open and BA move their entire operation between the strips there will be no need for it anyway.
.4
I was about to post...
The 06.00 to 07.00 hour is then needlessly busy with lost of crossing tracks on base/final approach with knackered pilots and atcos working their socks off as ATC try to get back to no delays for the start of the 07.00 to 08.00 hour. Totally stupid imo.
The crossover on final approach should be stopped for exactly the same reasons that the DAP will not support its introduction at a 2 runway Stansted nor will they sanction a Terminal Departures (crossover on departure) Mixed-mode operation.
Once Terminal 5 is open and BA move their entire operation between the strips there will be no need for it anyway.
.4
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
Admiral, if I have to explain that I was using irony, then it was clearly ineffective. I shall be more selective in future!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently operated JNB-LHR, incurring unexplained extra burn en-route, which made our arrival fuel only a little over our company minimum reserve. Sometimes these things even themselves out over time, but nothing had changed by 1.30 to ETA. Warned company and asked them to pre-warn ATC that we would only have once round BIG before needing to make approach. Unfortunately, message not received by relevant controller, so first they knew of our fuel state was as we arrived at BIG. Didn't get vectored off straightaway, second time over BIG declared PAN as considered potential for landing below final reserve. Expeditious approach and landing. Phoned ATC afterwards, agreed only lesson to be learned was to ensure on first contact with UK ATC that they are fully aware of situation. Job done, these things happen, that's why there are procedures.
Psychophysiological entity
Underlying all the arguments, I think we all know that should an aircraft have to divert unreasonably quickly, all the savings for a year will be negated.
Should there ever be an accident, the cost rises exponentially to some point that a lot of operators can't recover from.
What is going wrong is the loss of the captain's decision-making authority.
Should there ever be an accident, the cost rises exponentially to some point that a lot of operators can't recover from.
What is going wrong is the loss of the captain's decision-making authority.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underlying all the arguments, I think we all know that should an aircraft have to divert unreasonably quickly, all the savings for a year will be negated.
Very often, all that extra fuel just delays what would inevitably have happened anyway (for example fog holding). A sharp operator should be able to get a standby crew on scene fairly quickly if the crew cannot 'fuel and go'. Better to do this sometimes than fllog around if there are runway problems. Fuel Diversions caused by low fuel that would not have occured had extra been carried are probably far less than one a year per service. The cost of carrying more fuel over a full year will exceed the cost of a diversion. Remember the Captain can still elect to carry extra on days when he sees fit and feels the extra cost is justified.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: By a river
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies/Gentlemen;
I don't understand the cost savings on fuel load. If you have a fleet of 50 a/c and they are full fueled at the beginning of the year and each of them fly 4000 hrs p/a, at the end of the year, you are going to have a fleet of 50 a/c sitting on the ramp with full fuel. And any other equation under that is still going to produce the same direct costs. In fact constant planning with min fuel may increase costs substantially with unplanned diversions, etc.
Regards
carholme
I don't understand the cost savings on fuel load. If you have a fleet of 50 a/c and they are full fueled at the beginning of the year and each of them fly 4000 hrs p/a, at the end of the year, you are going to have a fleet of 50 a/c sitting on the ramp with full fuel. And any other equation under that is still going to produce the same direct costs. In fact constant planning with min fuel may increase costs substantially with unplanned diversions, etc.
Regards
carholme
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand the cost savings on fuel load.
However, less fuel = more chance of running out = more chance of crashing = passengers travel with safer airlines = much more cost (well, less profit, anyway)
Anyway, before I got sidetracked, I really came here to say.......
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."
Douglas Bader
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except for the direct cost of lifting excess fuel to altitude and then carrying it for thousands of miles to destination, there is the indirect cost of (under certain circumstances) offloading revenue pax or freight to enable the necessary uplift.
Minimum fuel makes economic sense to the bean counters.. Captains need to provide the common sense in the equation.
Minimum fuel makes economic sense to the bean counters.. Captains need to provide the common sense in the equation.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carholme - airlines are run by beancounters, aircraft by pilots. In all the airlines with which I have been associated the bc's decide that the occasional diversion is cheaper than lots of extra fuel on every trip. It is then my decision, as pilot, whether I go on their plan or mine. In my time I flew with Captains on 737s who always took 'a tonne extra for comfort' - a ridiculous plan! Sometimes you might need 2 tonnes extra.
The danger is, as said above, when bc pressure, relayed downwards by eager and upcoming management, pushes the Captains to take less than they should.
The danger is, as said above, when bc pressure, relayed downwards by eager and upcoming management, pushes the Captains to take less than they should.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just about spewed my morning beverage when this BS aired the other morning. Typical bovine fecal material for a "sweeps" ratings period like November is over here...
Notice how that they manage to reverse-engineer and assume a minimum fuel arrival automatically meant an "under-fueled" aircraft at departure?
Notice the years they used for the comparions? 2005: No AFP programs in existance. 2006: (skipped, but AFPs start). 2007: AFPs still there, but this year, more use of them due more weather this 2007 season. Is it any wonder why the huge gap between the numbers? (Airspace flow programs and the weather that drives them have been the reason for the big ATC delay mess here this past spring and summer).
This report is a classic example of why people should take anything they hear on the news with a grain of salt--a grain about the size of a Volkswagen.
I notice also that they didn't use the word "dispatcher" once. I guess all that fuel gets on the aircraft all by itself, or that the PIC just says "fill'er up" and goes...
Notice how that they manage to reverse-engineer and assume a minimum fuel arrival automatically meant an "under-fueled" aircraft at departure?
Notice the years they used for the comparions? 2005: No AFP programs in existance. 2006: (skipped, but AFPs start). 2007: AFPs still there, but this year, more use of them due more weather this 2007 season. Is it any wonder why the huge gap between the numbers? (Airspace flow programs and the weather that drives them have been the reason for the big ATC delay mess here this past spring and summer).
This report is a classic example of why people should take anything they hear on the news with a grain of salt--a grain about the size of a Volkswagen.
I notice also that they didn't use the word "dispatcher" once. I guess all that fuel gets on the aircraft all by itself, or that the PIC just says "fill'er up" and goes...