4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reivax, my remarks were intended as an (intentional ) slur on the very large Spanish loco who I am sure wouldn't have troubled themselves with declaring an emergency.
You may not know, but we had many Spanish FO's in RYR when I was there (2002-08) and we were made very aware of how things were in our Spanish competitors.
Sqwauk 7600, at what fuel level would you suggest they make the decision to divert ? if they do it at Div Fuel + final reserve (as they all did) it is rather difficult to offer any legally based criticism (again we are back to Monday Morning Quarterback teritory here.
You may not know, but we had many Spanish FO's in RYR when I was there (2002-08) and we were made very aware of how things were in our Spanish competitors.
Sqwauk 7600, at what fuel level would you suggest they make the decision to divert ? if they do it at Div Fuel + final reserve (as they all did) it is rather difficult to offer any legally based criticism (again we are back to Monday Morning Quarterback teritory here.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POOR AIRMANSHIP.
I don't care if its wind / delays / weather or anything, if you are flying around your destination eating into your alternate fuel then you shouldn't be a pilot. If they were employed at my company I would have fired the lot of them!
I don't care if its wind / delays / weather or anything, if you are flying around your destination eating into your alternate fuel then you shouldn't be a pilot. If they were employed at my company I would have fired the lot of them!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The first question I ask is "why am I waiting?". If the event causing me not to be able to land isn't likely to change before it's time to divert, then the answer is "immediately". Why wait?"
I wonder if the hairs were getting active on the back of some necks; and hoping there was not going to be a need for a hold or G/A at VLC. Reading into the quote above it relates to the old adage of "it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground."
I wonder if the hairs were getting active on the back of some necks; and hoping there was not going to be a need for a hold or G/A at VLC. Reading into the quote above it relates to the old adage of "it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground."
The IAA report report highlights the true problem imho, madrid control or whatever their callsign is today. Nothing changed since 20 years ago when i ended up in Vallodolid in a similar WX situation and without help from ATC.
In a WX situation like given ATC has to expect flights getting close to their diversion fuel and have to organize the diversions according to the actual fuel remaining figures (in hours / minutes) and have to inform the crews abbout the intended sequencing and the necessary time until landing. That way confidence into the ability to handle the situation is developping in the cockpits and that should keep everything calm and in order. If this confidence gets lost in one cockpit and the first mayday call is out in the open, the following unknown resequencing and unknown time for the own landing leads to the next mayday call and the next necessity to resequence the rest of the flights. It´s like some kind of domino effect, not stoppable anymore.
As the fuel figures turned out i see nothing wrong with the fuel loaded, with the fuel when diversions started and even not with the figures they finally landed. But sometime in the sequence some crew (we even don´t know wether a Ryan Air flight declared the first mayday, do we?) lost enough confidence in ATC to handle the diversions in that way, that the fuel would be suficient. That was when the chips started falling, and only ATC coud have prevented the situation from further decaying.
But as i said before, they hadn´t been able in the past, and when nothing changed or will change, then it´s going to happen again.
franzl
In a WX situation like given ATC has to expect flights getting close to their diversion fuel and have to organize the diversions according to the actual fuel remaining figures (in hours / minutes) and have to inform the crews abbout the intended sequencing and the necessary time until landing. That way confidence into the ability to handle the situation is developping in the cockpits and that should keep everything calm and in order. If this confidence gets lost in one cockpit and the first mayday call is out in the open, the following unknown resequencing and unknown time for the own landing leads to the next mayday call and the next necessity to resequence the rest of the flights. It´s like some kind of domino effect, not stoppable anymore.
As the fuel figures turned out i see nothing wrong with the fuel loaded, with the fuel when diversions started and even not with the figures they finally landed. But sometime in the sequence some crew (we even don´t know wether a Ryan Air flight declared the first mayday, do we?) lost enough confidence in ATC to handle the diversions in that way, that the fuel would be suficient. That was when the chips started falling, and only ATC coud have prevented the situation from further decaying.
But as i said before, they hadn´t been able in the past, and when nothing changed or will change, then it´s going to happen again.
franzl
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody answer to the main question.
Why only three RYR declared Mayday except Lan with technical problems.
Can anybody answer this question?
Thanks in advance.
Why only three RYR declared Mayday except Lan with technical problems.
Can anybody answer this question?
Thanks in advance.
http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2012...alencia_EN.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Malaga
Age: 64
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say again. Tell me a reason why nobody else declare mayday in the same conditions of weather, ATC etc.
I´m not talking about why RYR declares mayday.
Do you understand what i mean?
I´m not talking about why RYR declares mayday.
Do you understand what i mean?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Euroland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@LEMG
That technical problem of LAN you talk about, did you read this from the avherald website:
That technical problem of LAN you talk about, did you read this from the avherald website:
A LAN Airlines Airbus A340-300, registration CC-CQF performing flight LA-705 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Madrid,SP (Spain), estimated flight time 3:10 hours, was on final approach to Madrid's runway 18L when the crew went around from about 4000 feet MSL at 20:02Z. The aircraft climbed to FL120 and followed delay vectors until 20:22Z (20 minutes) when the crew decided to divert to Valencia. Still on a westerly heading in opposite direction to Valencia the aircraft climbed to FL280 before turning east to Valencia. On descent towards Valencia the crew declared Mayday reporting being low on fuel. The aircraft reached Valencia descending through FL100 at 21:09Z and subsequently lost an engine. The aircraft landed in Valencia at 21:16Z 74 minutes after going around in Madrid with 1300kg/2860lbs of fuel in the left wing tank and 800kg/1760lbs of fuel in the right wing tank remaining substantially below the required minimum final fuel reserve of about 2800kg/6170lbs.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Malaga
Age: 64
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem , one more mayday due to low fuel, but not 3 from the same airline and about Av Herald i´m still waiting for the RYR MAD and LBA-MJV incidents.
Tell me if you find them.
Thanks
Tell me if you find them.
Thanks
You are quite free to contact Simon if you feel the incidents are worthy of mention as they are already in press.
Not every airline incident gets listed because there are simply too many of them.
Not every airline incident gets listed because there are simply too many of them.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Malaga
Age: 64
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok thanks.
BTW, Air Europa incident is not true.
Little bit strage.
Globalia desconoce si un avión de Air Europa aterrizó de urgencia en Madrid
BTW, Air Europa incident is not true.
Little bit strage.
Globalia desconoce si un avión de Air Europa aterrizó de urgencia en Madrid
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEMG. . . . it is always possible (believe me VERY possible) that Vueling/Air Europa etc were in even deeper sh1t than Ryanair but basically told no-one, or, just pressed on & landed in the middle of the TS at MAD.
If we are constantly going to slag off RYR, whose standards - and faults , I know VERY well (did you work for them LEMG ? or have you worked with REAL pilots who worked previously for a Spanish carrier ? No ? . . I thought not) lets balance it all a bit by acknowledging that my first paragraph here is maybe not so far from the truth.
As I stated a few posts ago, who do you feel safer with, a bunch of pilots who will declare a "Mayday" if it prudent & justified to do so, or a bunch of pilots who A - land during an active TS , or B - land with ? ? what amount of fuel onboard, but say nothing to no one. Do you really think Ryanair were the only ones in MAD that night with a similar fuel level . . . . Nah
If we are constantly going to slag off RYR, whose standards - and faults , I know VERY well (did you work for them LEMG ? or have you worked with REAL pilots who worked previously for a Spanish carrier ? No ? . . I thought not) lets balance it all a bit by acknowledging that my first paragraph here is maybe not so far from the truth.
As I stated a few posts ago, who do you feel safer with, a bunch of pilots who will declare a "Mayday" if it prudent & justified to do so, or a bunch of pilots who A - land during an active TS , or B - land with ? ? what amount of fuel onboard, but say nothing to no one. Do you really think Ryanair were the only ones in MAD that night with a similar fuel level . . . . Nah
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next one. Today at 9:30AM an emergency landing in Billund on route from Alicante to Gothenburg (FR 9086). I'd say: enough is enough. Even if no real danger in question, the media fuss will only intensify.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oxford
Age: 49
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are clearly lessons to be learned. FR has reviewed its fuel policy, and we can only hope that Spain will look at the delays that night to see if they could be handled any better.
In Spain's aviation investigation's agency website, there is finally an entry on the 4 incidents on the 26th July (3 Ryanair and 1 LAN -and yet the title of this thread still has it as 4 Ryanairs!)
Anyway, I insist on the LAN A340, which has the following interesting info on it (It's in Spanish, but I translate the important bit: Analysis provided by the operator identified the engine had stopped due to low fuel flow.
26-julio-2012. EI-EKK. Boeing B737-800. CC-CQF. Airbus A340-300.*EI-DHH.* Boeing 737-800.* EI-ENM. Boeing B737-800. Aproximación al Aeropuerto de Valencia. - 2012 - Investigación - CIAIAC - Órganos Colegiados - Ministerio de Fomento
Just to show that there was a witch-hunt, it was reported in Spanish media that AESA was requiring all Ryanair incidents to be reported at once, and only later changed that to include all airlines.
Yet, publicly they have not even mentioned the LAN incident, but it's welcome that it is included as part of the review that the Spanish agreed to do after their meeting with the Irish counterparts.
In Spain's aviation investigation's agency website, there is finally an entry on the 4 incidents on the 26th July (3 Ryanair and 1 LAN -and yet the title of this thread still has it as 4 Ryanairs!)
Anyway, I insist on the LAN A340, which has the following interesting info on it (It's in Spanish, but I translate the important bit: Analysis provided by the operator identified the engine had stopped due to low fuel flow.
26-julio-2012. EI-EKK. Boeing B737-800. CC-CQF. Airbus A340-300.*EI-DHH.* Boeing 737-800.* EI-ENM. Boeing B737-800. Aproximación al Aeropuerto de Valencia. - 2012 - Investigación - CIAIAC - Órganos Colegiados - Ministerio de Fomento
Just to show that there was a witch-hunt, it was reported in Spanish media that AESA was requiring all Ryanair incidents to be reported at once, and only later changed that to include all airlines.
Yet, publicly they have not even mentioned the LAN incident, but it's welcome that it is included as part of the review that the Spanish agreed to do after their meeting with the Irish counterparts.
Last edited by condorox; 22nd Sep 2012 at 12:59.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop the witch hunt
How many of you guys have been flying in Spain lately? Iberia get priority.
Chatter in Spanish- Add TS to that and you have a nice mix. Good luck to everybody.
Chatter in Spanish- Add TS to that and you have a nice mix. Good luck to everybody.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: EU
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk-7600
Having re-read the thread to try to follow your reasoning, I still find myself unable to agree with you.
I'm confused. I have read the IAA report and I also recall post 225 and the surrounding discussion which proved that the Ryanair aircraft did not hold at MAD. I know the initial Ryanair statement was misleading because it spoke of holding but that was also explained (discredited) in this thread.
It has also been said on this thread that carrying 10,000 kgs of extra fuel is no better than carrying 500 kgs if you burn that fuel holding before requesting a diversion. But that is not what happened here. In this case, the aircraft diverted nigh on immediately. As I said before, simple arithmetic based on the departure fuel, the fuel onboard at the point of diversion and arrival fuel on each aircraft does not support the proposition that anyone wasted time. The MAYDAYs were made in accordance with international procedure once at the diversion field when the aircraft could not wait any longer.
I don't wish to 'play the man' and with due deference to your 17,000 hrs in the cockpit, I respectfully query whether you have flown much in Spanish airspace in the last few years? It was stated earlier that AESA proudly stated that aircraft belonging to 8 Spanish operators didn't divert and landed on 18R while the Ryanair aircraft were heading off to VLC. Having operated from MAD and flown into most Spanish airports numerous times, the allegations of which you complain certainly resonate with me, if not you. In fact, I would have thought the fact that solely Spanish carriers landed at that time backs up the allegations to an uncomfortable degree.
Regards.
Having re-read the thread to try to follow your reasoning, I still find myself unable to agree with you.
It has been obvious right from the initial report by Simon that the root cause of this situation was the decision by the operating Captains of the 3 flights in this discussion to continue to hold, by their own volition, until they reached just greater than their minimum LEGAL diversion fuel, and then they requested a diversion, during which they discovered (somewhat unremarkably) that the legally required fuel was not enough for the prevailing conditions
It has also been said on this thread that carrying 10,000 kgs of extra fuel is no better than carrying 500 kgs if you burn that fuel holding before requesting a diversion. But that is not what happened here. In this case, the aircraft diverted nigh on immediately. As I said before, simple arithmetic based on the departure fuel, the fuel onboard at the point of diversion and arrival fuel on each aircraft does not support the proposition that anyone wasted time. The MAYDAYs were made in accordance with international procedure once at the diversion field when the aircraft could not wait any longer.
I don't wish to 'play the man' and with due deference to your 17,000 hrs in the cockpit, I respectfully query whether you have flown much in Spanish airspace in the last few years? It was stated earlier that AESA proudly stated that aircraft belonging to 8 Spanish operators didn't divert and landed on 18R while the Ryanair aircraft were heading off to VLC. Having operated from MAD and flown into most Spanish airports numerous times, the allegations of which you complain certainly resonate with me, if not you. In fact, I would have thought the fact that solely Spanish carriers landed at that time backs up the allegations to an uncomfortable degree.
Regards.
Last edited by Depone; 22nd Sep 2012 at 19:28.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been reading some of the posts here and like many, I wonder why the crews waited so long to divert based on min diversion fuel and no extra.
In present outfit, the diversion fuel is based on a cost index of 0 and not the normal 35 - which can be a bit of a gotcha, as your obviously going to burn a lot more than it says in the plan unless you change to cost index 0 for the diversion.
As the old saying goes ' you only have too much fuel - when your on fire ! '
In present outfit, the diversion fuel is based on a cost index of 0 and not the normal 35 - which can be a bit of a gotcha, as your obviously going to burn a lot more than it says in the plan unless you change to cost index 0 for the diversion.
As the old saying goes ' you only have too much fuel - when your on fire ! '