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

4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time

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

4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time

Old 30th Aug 2012, 16:10
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 83
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
If I understand what is going on here:

The summary of the situation is this. Ryanair SOPs require any crew that thinks it might be in a situation whereby it might land with less than the 30 minutes of emergency fuel is required to call "Mayday".

That seems to me to be an eminently sensible SOP.

There should be no shame in declaring a "Mayday" for whatever reason. It doesn't matter whether the aircraft departed with enough fuel to fly around the world but, in the final analysis, if you are going to be in a position where you think you are likely to be landing with less than (in this case) 30 minutes of fuel, the there is no alternative but to call Mayday.

If I understand the situation correctly, the Spanish authorities have so far established that one Ryanair aircraft "arrived" at Valencia with 28 minutes of fuel left in tanks. Did they dip the tanks as the aircraft turned off the runway or did they dip the tanks after the 30 minutes that it took to get on stand?

I don't know what the answer is but if all this crap is about one aircraft arriving on stand two minutes short of fuel (28 minutes), then I am bloody glad that I have retired and, in particular, that I will never have to fly into Spanish airspace ever again.
JW411 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2012, 18:44
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Many different places
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@JW411

Amen to that sir.
7574ever is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2012, 19:09
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last 4 posts obviously are or were "proper aviators". Diversion at CNR will almost certainly mean you land with or near Final Reserve Fuel.......what if the winds are wrong, Atc hold you up or someone else gets priority because of an earlier Mayday. Those figures seem to reflect crews just about getting it right.
Personally I would be more concerned about the Lan flight......but that wouldn't be interesting. If people think making a mayday call is bad form have a read about Cove Neck.

P.s. just to confirm I am not a RYR apologist.....I cannot stand their corporate mentality, but it's unfair to question crews who seem to have got it right.
Right Way Up is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2012, 19:34
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree BOAC. However the EU method of dispatching and the lack of a flight watch system can leave crews with very little information or time to make informed decisions.

Maybe the "state-side" guys could comment on this senario in a co-authority dispatch system?
LYKA is online now  
Old 30th Aug 2012, 21:16
  #265 (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 JW411
The summary of the situation is this. Ryanair SOPs require any crew that thinks it might be in a situation whereby it might land with less than the 30 minutes of emergency fuel is required to call "Mayday".
- a small correction - in that situation a PAN call is required. The MAYDAY when you WILL land etc etc. The unknown is the mentioned (supposed) Spanish ATC lack of response to a PAN.

LYKA - I am not familiar with the US dispatch system, but I cannot see what advantage it would bring here. In the EU, crews are trained and used to reacting themselves to situations and not relying on an external input.
BOAC is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2012, 05:32
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Which is kind of my point. The tendency for EU Carriers to take 4 or more OFPs and corresponding WX packs at the start of their duties is, to my knowledge common place. I believe FR aircraft do not have ACARS so updating dispatch and inflight replanning WX requirements can be problematic leaving the crew in uninformed and in this case a challenging operational set of circumstances. I'm not saying that a flight watch system would have changed the outcome, only the crews may have been in a better place to make a MORE informed decision before they entered the MAD TMA.
LYKA is online now  
Old 31st Aug 2012, 08:12
  #267 (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 Squawk-7600
Flight following would have sent the amended TAF/TTF indicating the requirements,
- welcome to the forum. As posted here, FR do not have ACARS, so how would you propose 'Flight following' would pass the information to the crew en route?
and the legally required fuel for such.
- I am not aware of any such requirement in EUOPS.
Furthermore, placing the blame on ATC is a complete nonsense.
- where do you see this? As far as I can see there was no problem with ATC?
Originally Posted by LYKA
The tendency for EU Carriers to take 4 or more OFPs and corresponding WX packs at the start of their duties
- I cannot see a problem. In my experience, a new set of TAFS and ACTUALS is provided on each T/R and any revised OFP would be sent to the handling agent for the crew.

It worked.

Last edited by BOAC; 31st Aug 2012 at 08:14.
BOAC is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2012, 08:23
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I cannot see a problem. In my experience, a new set of TAFS and ACTUALS is provided on each T/R and any revised OFP would be sent to the handling agent for the crew.
BOAC, indeed this was the case in my 5 years with Ryanair
fireflybob is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2012, 09:40
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Belgium
Age: 55
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Valid alternate

Making sure your alternate(s) is/are open at arrival time (overhead alternate) @ ETA plus minus one hour is part of the planning... at least for me. We have this sort of situation happening frequently on our routes. Considering FR operates to rather small airports in general, it seems strange that wasn't taken into account ?
Waspy is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2012, 10:08
  #270 (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 waspy
it seems strange that wasn't taken into account ?
- which alternate are you saying was closed?
BOAC is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2012, 14:16
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Waspy, what makes you think the crews would not have planned accordingly?
fireflybob is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2012, 15:40
  #272 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Squawk - you give us no clues as to your 'credentials' here, but I assume you are not a professional pilot? Commnets like "In fact that was not the case, as the forecast weather conditions changed en route" reinforce my assumption since they often do, and a 'Flight Follower' with no means of communication with the a/c competes directly with a chocolate teapot. 'Continuing' to Madrid is EXACTLY what they should have done. I certainly would have done, and I suspect most crews likewise. The decision is made on arrival at destination, and I suspect with that met special their plans were probably pretty well formed. There is nothing in that special to prevent the commencement of the approach, nor, indeed, a possible safe arrival. It is only by 'being there' that you will know. They were; they did.
BOAC is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 00:33
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone like to comment on why only Spanish operators landed during that time?

According to AvHerald:

Beginning 19:52Z until 20:48Z a number of aircraft on approach to Madrid aborted their approaches and went around including all non-Spanish operators, except for eight flights of Spanish only operators which continued their flights for landings on Madrid's runways 18. The Aviation Herald is still monitoring these flights, that landed between 19:52Z and 20:10Z.
crispy banana is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 00:52
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pretty full of yourself squawk.
330pirate is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 07:38
  #275 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Squawk - your post #303 is also full of Swiss Cheese holes. You need to understand that PPRuNe suffers from an inundation of 'enthusiastic amateurs' and 'new' posters whose total experience is a 'suitcase' are always viewed with suspicion. For your reference, all, including you, can view posters profiles if you are interested, so your 'p!!ssing contest was wasted. No real experience of JAROps? This whole thread is about adherence to such. Reference to 'dispatch' and 'Flight Following' are irrelevant. Reference to how 'you' operated outside JAROps are of passing interest only. Your 'mission' needs to be to change JAR/EU Ops I think. Even BA do not use that system, although they do monitor and communicate with crews.

Quote:
AT LEAST tempo holding for the forecast I provided, if not a full alternate.
- I have no idea what you are talking about. I trust you understand that what you 'provided' was a METAR and not a 'forecast'? How you expect a crew to plan for that I do not know - and what on earth is a 'full' alternate? I take it you are suggesting that on receipt of that actual YOU would have instantly diverted to your 'full' alternate? Hmm.

Crispy - I can vouch for such behaviour. An anecdote for you. Back in the early 2000's I was the only BA a/c on the ground at MAD (out of 5) with HF. A similar 'restriction' at airfield level was being placed on Maastricht allocated slots. Start-up clearance was being given to roughly 1 in 5 a/c, and all were Spanish and we were watching our slots 'evaporate'. We were all chatting on 'company' and I was relaying to LHR on HF. Purely by chance the senior BA ATC liaison manager was in Maastricht at a meeting and was phoned by LHR ops at my request. Suddenly we got start-up, no slot restrictions and the Senior MAD 'man' had a bo**ocking.. It sounds as if nothing much has changed.I can also recall holding as number 7 for R18 to find 20 minutes later I was number 9. Draw your own conclusions. Red Herring?
BOAC is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 08:08
  #276 (permalink)  

Freight God
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sqwak

do you really expect any Management of any Airline to go out there and say that the fact that some Crews had to declare an emergency by applying the book is a catastrophy? They did not say it was an everyday occurrence, they only said that there was no reason to panic.

As you claim to have been in an operations management position you should actually know that. You say you have no agenda? So why the pissing contest?

The LAN flight was caught out big time, yet I still miss the ever growing thread about management abuse, bad airmanship and all the other BS that was given in this one...
Hunter58 is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 09:19
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 63
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I certainly trust my comments aren't seen as sponsoring some form of witch-hunt against the crews involved
Squawk is seriously deluded if he thinks that a brand new poster, with no credentials, a few words of here is my (so called) experience and a very obvious lack of knowledge of European airspace and procedures is going to influence anyone on here or from the Authorities!

Weird.
kick the tires is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 10:11
  #278 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Moving on, then , your go
and what on earth is a 'full' alternate? I take it you are suggesting that on receipt of that actual YOU would have instantly diverted to your 'full' alternate? Hmm.
BOAC is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 11:33
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dark side of the force
Age: 54
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why spanish airliners landed in Madrid?

Maybe they had enough fuel to try the approach in Madrid and proceed to alternate or maybe it happens like in tenerife south were I land with no problem and I see Monarch, easyjet and ryanairs proceeding to Las Palmas because its windy, or maybe those guys in the cockpit entered the company with 200 hours and donīt know how to shoot a X-wind landing...

The question is why all of them declared emergency when the real one on emergency was a Lan Chile with an engine failure.
transilvana is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2012, 11:35
  #280 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Right - I see.
Cross out the word "full" if it makes you feel better.
- done - now it makes sense.
What I meant by that was that an alternate may be carried instead of holding fuel, for example if it resulted in a lesser fuel requirement.
- not permitted in those circumstances in JAROPS. For your information, then, JAROPS would require alternate fuel in tanks at g/a for that forecast - it would be extremely unlikely that a landing could be 'assured' there under JAROPS definitions. I'm sure all the Ryanairs complied with that. No-one would have dispatched with less than alternate fuel. Also JAROPS does not specify any holding requirement in fuel loads at destination. The rules are on-line if you wish to look at them.
Given that the fuel policy is approved by the State regulatory body my company operates under, to disregard that requirement and continue anyway, THEN divert, THEN land without statutory reserves, I would probably find myself in deep legal doo-doo.
- no difference, then - and the RYs did not intend to do so, nor did they arrive at MAD with 'insufficient' fuel, of course, as we trust you understand with your experience?
BOAC 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.