Ryanair Very Low Fuel Landing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading some input from Boeing guys.....Jumping the gun seems like just what it is.
Someone was saying something along the lines "I carry more to land with at least 1800 kg, thats airmanship" I can only agree, IF CNR is 1800. If CNR is lower and there is no specific reason to carry more, I'll carry enough to land with CNR.
However, maybe they carried fuel to land with 2000 kg, what do we know? Plan for landing with 2000, get a lower flight level then planned, arr at hold with 1700, get EAT 30 min away, nice weather, lots of runways, decide to stay in hold and use alt fuel since landing is assured. If plan does not work, request priority and land. Fair enough?
Someone was saying something along the lines "I carry more to land with at least 1800 kg, thats airmanship" I can only agree, IF CNR is 1800. If CNR is lower and there is no specific reason to carry more, I'll carry enough to land with CNR.
However, maybe they carried fuel to land with 2000 kg, what do we know? Plan for landing with 2000, get a lower flight level then planned, arr at hold with 1700, get EAT 30 min away, nice weather, lots of runways, decide to stay in hold and use alt fuel since landing is assured. If plan does not work, request priority and land. Fair enough?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Europe.
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Ryanair NG's the fuel low warning will pop up if the main tanks have less than 453 kg's (or 1000lbs) in either tank.
Also Ryanair policy is to plan your flight not to arrive with less than 2000 kg's of fuel remaining so they should never have less than 2000 kg's of alternate fuel when arriving at their destination.
Seems a bit of a risk with only one runway though doesn't it? Sure one MCC instructor once told me "meh, if worst comes to worst you can always land on the taxiway" 
Also Ryanair policy is to plan your flight not to arrive with less than 2000 kg's of fuel remaining so they should never have less than 2000 kg's of alternate fuel when arriving at their destination.
Plan for landing with 2000, get a lower flight level then planned, arr at hold with 1700, get EAT 30 min away, nice weather, lots of runways, decide to stay in hold and use alt fuel since landing is assured. If plan does not work, request priority and land. Fair enough?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our fleet in FR is also modified to the 453kg low fuel warning.
Interesting is that no FR flight is planned to land at Dest with less than 2000kg
So even when diversion fuel would be 600kg, this would normally be increased to around 1100kg on our flightplan.
So 1100kg plus the 30min would end up with more than 2000kg on any flight.
What I hear from other guys here that's quite a lot.
Lorel
Interesting is that no FR flight is planned to land at Dest with less than 2000kg
So even when diversion fuel would be 600kg, this would normally be increased to around 1100kg on our flightplan.
So 1100kg plus the 30min would end up with more than 2000kg on any flight.
What I hear from other guys here that's quite a lot.
Lorel
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im waiting for the facts to emerge. They may have landed with that amount of fuel but thats not to say its due to crew irresponsibility. There are any number of reasons out of the crews' hands that could lead to that situation. What would be bad would be if it transpired that there was no mayday.
What's the fuel burn like on the 737 when taxiing? If there was a long distance and/or delays on the way to stand, that might account for some of it. I've been below CMR in the tech. log when landing with planned remainder at LHR, JFK, etc. even with an engine shut down when possible.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Changing the 'LOW' setting guys - does that mean that the QRH is now only actioned at 453kg or do you still do it at 907kg?
As mentioned before, the 907 figure is an ETOPS requirement.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you 5150 - as I thought, and that trips my 'logic' CB!
The drill is for 'Low Fuel State' (for pump cover etc) and if 907kg is considered 'low'......................? Pumps will risk being 'unconvered' whether you are ETOPS or not - they don't know
. Personally I look at 1000kg to action. Nice ROUND figure.
The drill is for 'Low Fuel State' (for pump cover etc) and if 907kg is considered 'low'......................? Pumps will risk being 'unconvered' whether you are ETOPS or not - they don't know. Personally I look at 1000kg to action. Nice ROUND figure.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTO
"Landing at destination without alternate requires 30min holding fuel+15min
1800Kgs should be spot on for the NG"
That depends on what type of NG you are flying and the weight. On a not so heavy 700, the figure is around 1400-1500 kg's.
1800Kgs should be spot on for the NG"
That depends on what type of NG you are flying and the weight. On a not so heavy 700, the figure is around 1400-1500 kg's.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a few of the FR bases publish a fuel league, and you will often see the base cpt at the top end of that league… quite a few of those base cpt are line trainers; ie not always flying the most fuel efficient profiles (for training reasons)… so they must be doing something just a bit better than the rest of the FR drivers !!!
Then there is the fuel leaflet from the DCP handed out 2 weeks ago at STN, it apparently now has spread to other bases…
All that said, I am sure FR do not want their drivers landing with less than 1136 kgs (total) in the tanks… (Apparently airport elevation at HHN will make the 1136 kgs. number slightly different according to the DCP) anyone appreciate the irony of the statement !
But still no back info on 800 kgs. actually happened!!!
Then there is the fuel leaflet from the DCP handed out 2 weeks ago at STN, it apparently now has spread to other bases…
All that said, I am sure FR do not want their drivers landing with less than 1136 kgs (total) in the tanks… (Apparently airport elevation at HHN will make the 1136 kgs. number slightly different according to the DCP) anyone appreciate the irony of the statement !
But still no back info on 800 kgs. actually happened!!!
heard this rumour over a month ago...although the rumour was 900 kilos
think it went something like.... plog fuel to iffy weather airport, tailwind componet putting ac out of limits by 1 knot when on approach followed by diversion to non precision airport again with iffy weather..followed by another go around...followed eventually by a landing
but thats all rumour
think it went something like.... plog fuel to iffy weather airport, tailwind componet putting ac out of limits by 1 knot when on approach followed by diversion to non precision airport again with iffy weather..followed by another go around...followed eventually by a landing
but thats all rumour
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on the way...
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question is....
r.j
How do you arrive at 1800kgs for the -800 NG ??
FFR+ Alt fuel = CMR
Depending upon the flying time, and landing weight to No.1 div, your CMR could be under 1.8
How do you arrive at 1800kgs for the -800 NG ??
FFR+ Alt fuel = CMR
Depending upon the flying time, and landing weight to No.1 div, your CMR could be under 1.8
Don’t mix JAR-OPS fuel requirements and B737NG limitations and non-normal operations!!!
I don’t care about their alternate fuel and final reserve fuel now; I was just talking about QRH.
QRH NNC 12.9
MAIN TANK FUEL PUMP switches.......All ON
CROSSFEED selector.......................Open
Apply thrust changes slowly and smoothly.
If a climb is needed, maintain the minimus pitch attitude needed for safe flight.
END of QRH
The question is: “Is it legal to plan a flight with FR+Alt. F. less than 1800Kg?”
Imagine yourself diverting. You have a lot of staff to care about and as a bonus do the NNC and take care about pitch attitude, slow acceleration and so on. HAHA
That's all! Fly safe!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine yourself diverting. You have a lot of staff to care about and as a bonus do the NNC and take care about pitch attitude, slow acceleration and so on. HAHA
A lot of the BA brainwashed cadet co-pilots thought it a good idea................
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 84
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A hero lives for ever
In this case he arrived over his single runway destination in bad weather. Tried several approaches and then diverted and landed with 800 kg. All the others were long time gone or never tried an app at destination. The man is a RYR hero, what can you do about that?
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that basis, isn't that what reserve fuel is about, he clearly landing with sufficient fuel. You could ask whether the poor weather at destination and alternate were forecast and if so should he have carried more fuel? But that is what pilots are paid their money for, even in Ryanair.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 84
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR OPS the Captains Bible
The greatest threat to aviation safety are pilots with the brain of a lawyer. They think reality is written down in the books, it’s a bit like religious fanatics.
Below 30 min you have to declare at least a PAN........he didn't
Forecasted Wx is irrelevant in this case. At TOD you have a clear picture of what your options are.
Below 30 min you have to declare at least a PAN........he didn't
Forecasted Wx is irrelevant in this case. At TOD you have a clear picture of what your options are.
Last edited by Bitburger; 3rd Jun 2008 at 14:56.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Too far from the equator
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 minor items...........
flying headbutt got his/her lbs/kgs conversion a little confused .
453 kgs = 1000 lbs and 907kgs = 2000lbs , and not 500 /1000 lbs .
BOAC is probably correct to assume that all NGs leave the factory ' NG capable' but in case there are any readers not familiar with ETOPS requirements I would like to point out that some NGs only have 1 FMC fitted and are therefore not ETOPS capable.
Keep safe
flying headbutt got his/her lbs/kgs conversion a little confused .
453 kgs = 1000 lbs and 907kgs = 2000lbs , and not 500 /1000 lbs .
BOAC is probably correct to assume that all NGs leave the factory ' NG capable' but in case there are any readers not familiar with ETOPS requirements I would like to point out that some NGs only have 1 FMC fitted and are therefore not ETOPS capable.
Keep safe