Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Ryanair Very Low Fuel Landing

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Ryanair Very Low Fuel Landing

Old 10th Jun 2008, 09:35
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: France
Age: 73
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool NG fuel

The legal minimum to land assuming you are assured of a landing at destination is Fixed reserve which on NG is aprox 1100kg. After a long taxi you could easily burn 300kg thus arriving at the gate with 800kg, all perfectly legal, very uncomfortable but no cause for postings on this site.
coool guy is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 09:48
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fuel Economy - Bring Back The Turbo-prop?

Reading this thread which is trying to justify flying with minimum fuel in order to save fractions of a percent in fuel burn makes me think that with margins so tight there ought to be a case for the return to the good old turbo-prop!

Despite improvements in gas turbine efficiency with high bypass ratio fans for short haul and mid haul ops you can't beat the air miles per gallon (or whatever units you prefer) achieved even by "old" technology engines such as the RR Dart.

I know that turbo-props are slower than the whizzy A318s/19s/20s etc. or the NG 737's but if flying slower meant flying cheaper then perhaps the SLF would accept it. Stll, it won't make the argument go away - there will still be the argument as to what is the prudent min fuel to upload. IMHO that is a cockpit responsibility and must remain at the crew's discretion....it will be a poor reflection on an airline's management should that cease to be the case.

One final though, maybe this should be posted on the History and Nostalgia page!! Were they really the good old days when there were Vicounts, Vanguards, Britannias etc. dominating the fleets?
Madbob is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 10:55
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
Our planning figures are 40kg/min in the air and 14kg/min for taxi, so 30 minutes would be exactly 1200kg. A further 300kg away from that would be over 20 minutes taxi time. Definitely worth shutting down one engine. If I saw a remaining fuel like that I would probably have a chat with the incoming crew to see what happened and if possible avoid it happening to me. Are you based at CDG cool guy?
lederhosen is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 11:03
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those couple of hundred extra for mum really do add up.
....to peanuts!.....in the big scheme of things.

My company wastes more on lawyers every year than all the pilots will ever 'waste' carrying fuel which makes them feel less close to the edge.

Tell the 'management' boards to leave the (relatively tiny) fuel margins alone and look at themselves where real savings are to be had!
Finman is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 17:24
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Studi

Thanks for the figures, my company gives us something similar I just didn't have it to hand.

My mob have about 150 shorthaul aircraft which fly between 6-8 sectors each a day. Profits last year were in the order of 200 mil. Given that on many occasions you will have to carry extra fuel I would guess the saveings we cold put down to takeing just CFP fuel are in the order of 2-3 mil so still around 1% of profits. I do rather disagree that this is insignificant particulary in an operation were margins are tight and as fuel costs increase the saveings will get bigger.

Maybe we could all volentarily (before we're forced to) give up 1% of our salaries to help out in these hard times. It is after all peanuts!

Finman I agree with you that there is often huge waste by management etc Other than voiceing your disquiet there is nothing you can do to directly affect that. You do however have control over how much fuel you carry and how you operate your aircraft both of which have a direct impact on the companies bottom line. Its a touch childish to say just because in my view they are not doing their job properly I won't make an effort either. Of course if you cannot trust your companies flight planning that is a different matter.
Ashling is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 18:34
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Funnily enough I too pay my dues to BALPA, but that wasn't the point I was makeing.
Ashling is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 18:47
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Studi,

The situation of individual Airlines is clearly going to affect opinions on this.

You have indicated that you work for a successful airline in this industry, however there are a significant number that must fight for every penny to survive.

Take an airline with 10% of the figures you quoted (excluding the profit). That is
1.3 million towards the profitability of the airline. That is a significant figure to airlines of this size whether their business model is flawed or not.

I also quite agree that airlines must also be looking elsewhere for savings but surely this should include fuel carriage given that fuel is one of the biggest costs to most airlines?

As I said before, as long as the company's fuel policy is followed and conditions permit, if it is not needed then why carry it given the cost implications?

If it is needed then, of course, it must be carried and perhaps documented if the airline requires.
Terminal 5ive is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 21:22
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grrrr
Age: 17
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I'm in Ashling's company and I fully agree with Studi. Too many swallow the management bollocks. Economically, it is peanuts saved. Costs must always be seen in relation to turnover and it is a pittance that can be saved. Any doubt, stick some more fuel on. I am not getting stressed and age quickly to save a few bucks while useless managers squander obscene amounts on stupid decisions. The summer of 2006 comes to mind in the orange world. I wonder if someone is calculating the ekstra airframe hour costs now that la la land wants us to descent with 256 knots

The 1 million thing is just applicable to our specific airline and is no generic figure.
ReallyAnnoyed is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 22:21
  #149 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
About 3 years ago, I was heading out from LHR on an AMS day trip... overcast at 400 on departure, with a prob 30 for 300 on the forecast. Now my company says I can ignore prob 30. But I didn't. Indeed, what's the difference between 300 and 200... simple, LVP's.

So I tanked for an hours holding on return, reinforced by the fact that EAT's were being sent out as we left...not drastic ones but EAT's none the less, which means over 20 minutes holding.

Arriving back at LAM, with a comfortable 1hr and 15 available for hold using contingency and holding Gatwick, we were given an EAT of 40 minutes, LHR being 200ft and LVP's. However, I heard one of our aircraft talking about not being able to cope with any movement on the EAT, so called ops, told them I was happy for an EAT swap as long as it was not beyond 60 minutes on my EAT, ie a move of 20.

They actioned it. Two aircraft who would otherwise have diverted recovered to LHR, our EAT moved about 4 times, but we left the stack at 57 minutes versus the 40 I was given originally. Comfortably in, and technically close to a commit to LHR, but as we all know STN is still available from LAM for a long time, and we were monitoring it on box two. No sweat at all, just another 17 minutes.

A fortnight later I flew with a copilot who had been flying the same day. He'd arrived just ahead of us, and hadn't the fuel to hold (they were on Cirrus) so had diverted to Luton. 2 hours on ground, then recovery with several passengers missing connections.

He had a letter in his bag from Flight Ops Management thanking him for diverting. I am not joking, it actually said words along the lines of "thank you for your efforts on such-and-such a day, we realise the decision to divert is a hard one and thank you for your sterling work blah blah blah."

I'd write out my letter verbatim.... if I ever got one. 3 diversions saved due to experience, and nothing. But you divert, you get a slap on the back.

Go figure. You don't need to carry excess extra every time, but then again, we shouldn't be given a diversion fuel for LTN via 27L that is effectively a Brookmans park plus an arrival at FL90 as reality bears no relation to that ground track at all.

What we are paid for is the interpretation, not following the orders verbatim. Unlike certain posters on this site, I do not believe Flight Ops Management know everything.

Squid
Sick Squid is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2008, 22:49
  #150 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sick Squid

Thank You. A thinking man's Pilot. I recognize the frustration with the outcome of your innovative work and that of the Pilot who diverted. There seems a disconnect at times (sic). In another time, our FOMs were non-Pilots, but answered to a very experienced man who couldn't shepherd all eleven of his people at one time, a source of bitterness for many years.

Airfoil
 
Old 11th Jun 2008, 07:17
  #151 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Terminal 5ive
As I said before, as long as the company's fuel policy is followed and conditions permit, if it is not needed then why carry it given the cost implications?

If it is needed then, of course, it must be carried and perhaps documented if the airline requires.
- can we please put this thread creep to bed with this excellent summary which really says it all? It is not about carrying extra fuel when your destination weather is crap, it is about a rumoured low arrival fuel state.

SS - how about a new thread about uplifting extra fuel?

Now, back to Ryanair bashing.....................
BOAC is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2008, 10:07
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is how your last post appears to me BOAC? Just because you consider that to be an excellent summary it is indeed the word of God and we can now move on knowing that the 'experts' have spoken.

As I said previously fuel is an emotive issue and ten pilots will probably have a hundred opinions on the subject. In my experience the majority of pilots do not feel comfortable arriving anywhere with the bare bones of Diversion plus Final Reserve,maybe all or none of the contingency, it is a minority that feel comfortable doing so at least in the jet companies I have worked at. That is on the basis also that I was a first officer for around nine years so I'm generally talking about the Captains ideas rather than mine. Talking to the F/O's I fly with and have flown with it appears that not much has changed in this regard.

You for example flew Harriers so will certainly have experience of flying around on minutes if fuel, which I do not and until they stick in an ejection seat have no intentions of going there. The point being that we all have different comfort levels.

Remember also that different companies may have very different approaches to this issue. They may have a very well developed Nav department that has huge piles of statistical data that adjusts navlogs to account for different situations - frequently they do not! I have found that one plog may leave you comfortable and the very next one could leave you literally short of legal fuel?

Different airports too have different approaches so one time you get straight in and you land with say 3.4t (737), same trip the next day you go all the way round the arrival at 5000ft.....'make your speed 180 kts'....'number five' etc and you land with 2.2t? Other airports are far more predictable so easier to plan for.

Amazing as it may sound I am aware of fuel prices and the requirement to be efficient, I quite frequently take plog fuel when I think it sensible. I'll bet there is some area in your operation where you have a particular view and maybe it doesn't quite gel with what 'they' say you should be doing but from personal experience you don't quite believe them and you quietly do what you believe to be right?

When I run short of fuel I would prefer people to say ' Sh1t it really wasn't his day!' rather than 'Why didn't he stick on more fuel?'
Stan Woolley is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2008, 10:34
  #153 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the word of God and we can now move on knowing that the 'experts' have spoken.
- well, I know for a fact that there at least 2 of us who think it was an 'excellent' post

God's primary intention was to revert this thread to its topic and not have lots of wittering on about '1000kg for mum' and 'my comfort zone' HERE, but rather to explore the plight of the pilot in question.
BOAC is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2008, 10:44
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
God's primary intention was to revert this thread to its topic and not have lots of wittering on about '1000kg for mum' and 'my comfort zone' HERE, but rather to explore the plight of the pilot in question.
Some of us strangely enough think it's the same issue.
Stan Woolley is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2008, 11:47
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I guess what BOAC and others are interested in is the missing mayday (or at least pan pan) - which needs proof as well as the number itself.
the_hawk is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2008, 15:43
  #156 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
..........or indeed if it ever happened, or if he 'landed' with 800, or just shut down with same after extended ground holding, or uplifted 1000 over PLOG and got held for an hour or so, diverted, had a fuel leak etc etc. Maybe there was a 'Mayday' or 'PAN' - who knows? We don't.

All 'urine and wind', I'm afraid, until we get something a little more reliable. NB 'Whitebraz' has not re-appeared, so we assume a 'stirrer'?
BOAC is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2008, 19:07
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last Activity: 3rd June 2008 01:23
nuff said?
the_hawk is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2008, 20:07
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 83
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
As I already stated in Post 121, Whitebraz is almost certainly a little one-post sh*t stirrer who is unwilling or unable to come back and back up his Spanish suppository.

We are all equally stupid to have risen to his bait.
JW411 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2008, 00:40
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JW

Regrettably these threads all develop into Ryanair bashing.

You will always get the sanctimonious whiners in any company: you know the type, all mouth, nada in the cojones!

Maybe WB was one of them.

As a mate once said DILLIGAF.

Actually he had it painted on his cab
The Real Slim Shady is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2008, 18:28
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U.K, I think.....
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JAR OPS - 2 approaches only?

Actually quite enjoying this thread, despite the drift, especially as fuel loading is a hot topic where I work too, although agree it might be better as a seperate thread.

However, back to topic, and a question.

We don't know the 'facts' about the flight in question yet, and any number of factors could have contrived to put the crew in the situation of landing in a low fuel situation, perfectly legally and safely, if indeed thay actually did.

JAR Ops allows 2 approaches and then diversion.
Can somone point me in the direction of where this is documented please? I have been told similar by a colleague a while back but never found the documented reference to this rule/guideline.....
Orp Tolip is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.