4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time

[Aldente]

Having said that, the fact is it does have rookie mistake x3 written all over it.

As a grey haired grizzled ex RYR skipper, I would have to agree.

There is just not enough experience in either seat. Poor decision making was made that night, not least of which was that one a/c departed for Mad in those conditions (both Wx and a known busy TMA) with just 283 kg above FPL fuel !! Yes, it was legal, but sensible ?......

The decision to divert was made too late.

I remember meeting a newly promoted Capt once (ex cadet, just over 3000 hours) who told me that he had never done a diversion whilst in either seat !

The IAA report cites many other contributory factors apart from Ryanair's fuel policy, however these were present for ALL operators that night - apart from the LAN Chile, why were the three other Maydays from Ryanair aircraft ? .......

I'm sad to have to say it buy I won't fly with them anymore. This is just the tip of a very large iceberg .....

[RAT 5]

Listening to F/O's approach briefings they always deducted RESV fuel from arrival fuel and declared they had X minutes holding fuel in hand. When the weather is bad they did not include things like a G/A and 2nd approach and then divert: did they have enough to do that? Something to think about. They didn't reduce calculated holding time BEFORE declaring a diversion to allow ATC to coordinate the diversion. In some areas I've had to wait 5mins for a diversion clearance. There's also the coordination with the company to consider. If there is a choice of diversion which do they prefer. If you all go to the same place will you re-fuel and fly again, or bus the pax on buses that don't exist anymore? Entering an area with TS, or Fog, or any other cause for a diversion I'd have every option airfield's Metar written down and a priority list decided upon BEFORE entering the lion's den. I always declared a decision time when reaching destination in bad weather. Capt's who've never diverted might never have benefited from the thinking and deciding process, so when it is their call they are learning as they go. Amazingly F/O's in some companies report that their command courses did not include class-room discussions about such scenarios. It would be wonderfully useful education to have group discussions about what you'd do if...... and what thinking process and variety of considerations come into play. A/C with no method of contacting company directly, or operating into an airfield with no radio for the handling agent need a captain with a wise head and that often comes from having seen it done before. If captains have not diverted it is likely they've not done a G/A from minimums. I remember my first one as an F/O; it was such a surprise and amazing, especially as I saw the approach lights whistle under us as we climbed away. Before it had been just a sim exercise. Having done it the mystery was now clear. Once I'd seen an ace captain do a G/A from a CAVOK visual circuit the lesson was learnt. I was fortunate to have had a sound apprenticeship. That is lacking in todays rapid promotion process.

[Depone]

As they say around here, you've got the wrong end of the stick. 'Nothing to see here' was a humorous way of deflecting attention from my mistake.

Pprune is a great resource but the potential for misunderstanding when people post ambiguous or incomplete opinions is huge. That was just a joke but one has to read statements on Pprune carefully before rushing to conclusions.

Incidentally, I happen to agree with 100% of the criticisms of Ryanair's fuel and command upgrade policies. Nevertheless, what many pilots flying the line at Ryanair actually in practise to mitigate those ill-thought-out policies is another thing altogether.

I flew out of MAD with a young, say sub-30 yr old, Ryanair Captain 2 years ago. He took 1 ton of 'extra' fuel on an internal flight back to MAD because of the delays. And that was a day with CAVOK.

[fireflybob]

The crew which only uplifted 283kg of extra stated they did not get a new TAF in STN.

Legally they wouldn't need to since the earlier TAF they had covered their ETA +/- one hour. Whilst I agree it might have been better to have the latest TAF would this have made any material difference?

It is obvious that flight crew who are employed by the hour and without protection are pressured into carrying less and lesser fuel and diverting later and later.

Do you know that the subject crew(s) were contract crew paid by the hour? A large proportion of their pilots are on a Ryanair contract. I don't think the issue of whether or not they are contract crew is that relevant.

A point I would like to mention is the expediency of not carrying excess fuel for commercial flexibility let alone safety.

On many flights it is totally appropriate to take flight plan fuel, ie no weather problems, anticipated ATC delays etc.

On some flights it is foolish in the extreme not to take some extra fuel. Given the TAFs mentioned I would like to think that I would think in terms of taking at least an extra hour's holding bearing in mind TEMPO means a change not exceeding one hour.

If you get there and TS prevents an approach you then have the endurance to hang around for up to an hour - by that time said TS has cleared the field and you make an approach and land.

Can anyone tell me that it is, from a holistic point of view, more economical to be on the ground at the alternate because you took flight plan fuel?

Surely the main objective is to get the passengers safely to their desired destination?

[jackharr]

I do understand the theory that carrying fuel costs fuel but how much does carrying extra really cost?

Let’s say that B737 has TOW is at 65,500 kgs instead of 65,000 kgs. Approximately, how much extra fuel would be consumed on a 1000 mile sector? I have to say that in my days as a BAe146 pilot, I never could detect any difference when carrying that little bit extra.

[fireflybob]

I do understand the theory that carrying fuel costs fuel but how much does carrying extra really cost?

Let’s say that B737 has TOW is at 65,500 kgs instead of 65,000 kgs. Approximately, how much extra fuel would be consumed on a 1000 mile sector? I have to say that in my days as a BAe146 pilot, I never could detect any difference when carrying that little bit extra.

Jack, it's a good question to ask. On the B737-800 you're looking at circa 20/30 kg per hour per tonne. Not much on an individual flight but a Company like Ryanair operating circa 1,000 flights per day every day tots up to quite a bit of gas and therefore money!

But we are not talking about carrying extra fuel on every flight are we but just those where it is clearly prudent to do so? OK it won't be always necessary but perhaps we should remember that these machines don't run very well on air and that accidents are expensive too!

[Bealzebub]

Roughly 4% per hour of the excess carried. So if you are carrrying 500 kg extra on your 1000 mile flight, 3 rotations a day, and the other 150 aircraft in the fleet are doing the same, for 365 days a year, you are burning around 13,141,000 kg a year (over Thirteen thousand tonnes,) just in tankering the excess fuel alone.

At a price of $1100 per metric tonne, that is $14,455,100 (nearly Fourteen and a half million US Dollars a year.)

[BEagle]

Roughly 4% per hour of the excess carried. So if you are carrrying 500 kg extra on your 1000 mile flight, 3 rotations a day, and the other 150 aircraft in the fleet are doing the same, for 365 days a year, you are burning around 13,141,000 kg a year (over Thirteen thousand tonnes,) just in tankering the excess fuel alone.

At a price of $1100 per metric tonne, that is $14,455,100 (nearly Fourteen and a half million US Dollars a year.)

Which, given that Mikey-the-Pikey's 'airline' allegedly carried 78.48 million passengers in the 12 months to Aug 2012, to be sure, to be sure, works out at about 11p per passenger.....

[Squawk-7600]

As I said above Jack, the cost to carry additional fuel is sweet FA on sectors of this length. When I was flying ultra-longhaul I'd load an extra tonne, and finish up with only something like 650 kg at the other end!!!

BB, the figures you produce are typical of contemporary management BS, and (no disrespect to you intended) but this is precisely the sort of crap that is being circulated. In fact nobody is advocating loading extra fuel on EVERY sector, only where it would be prudent to do so. Furthermore, coming up with a composite figure is a complete nonsense. It is STILL only a percentage of the total fuel burn, and not a very high one at that. Definitely not relative to the emphasis being placed on it by non-pilots. Washing aircraft and maintaining their exterior condition (seals etc) results in very significant fuel savings, but how often do we hear of that line pushed

[Bealzebub]

However much sympathy I have with what you both say, it is a sign of the times and one we are obviously going to have to get used to. These days it is often the ancilliaries that determine the profit or loss on a seat. So when a Kit Kat means make or break, that 11p or 40kg per hour, or whatever number you want to put on the sheet is going to come in for close scrutiny.

Your 11p becomes their fourteen million dollars.

Washing aircraft and maintaining their exterior condition (seals etc) results in very significant fuel savings, but how often do we hear of that line pushed

I am hearing it every week, these days. Anyone who ignores potential savings in this market is likely to find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, and in the world of "low cost" that washes less than the aircraft used to be!

[Squawk-7600]

Oh yes, just like removing an olive from the salad was going to save an airline Believe me, there are bigger fish to fry!

[Zoyberg]

CIL?

DLCM...

Excuse my ignorance but your post (presumably from RYR mgt) refers to CIL's advice on holding. I can't search this abbreviation as its only three letters..pls advise.

[Meikleour]

BEagle:At last .....a voice of reason!!!!

The "bean counter" argument which is so often cited should be seen in perspective relative to the increased crew workload and curtailed operational options taken against the trivial possible savings which may or may not be made.

[fireflybob]

Trouble is the beancounters seem to be running the show these days!

And then there is customer service - wouldn't passengers want a higher probability of getting to their chosen destination with least delay?

[JW411]

Just as a matter of interest, I had a coffee with one of my friends this morning. He is a current A-340 captain. I asked him about how he would feel about landing with 800 kgs in one wing and 1200 kgs in the other wing with one engine already failed.

His first reaction was that the crew concerned had obviously forgotten to open the cross-feeds.

He also reckoned that this fuel state in an A-340 would just about allow ten minutes of flight before complete disaster.

Since two of the FR aircraft landed with 30 minutes of emergency fuel and the other one was 75 kgs short of this figure, perhaps some of you might like to comment upon the fuel planning of the LAN Chile crew?

As you all already know, LAN Chile is not really the flag carrier for their country but just another low cost carrier like FR.

[RAT 5]

Does anyone know the experience of the crews? Total hours of captains, total on type and total in RYR? What about the F/O's; new cadets or seasoned F/O's? Were any locally based? How many times had the captains been to Madrid? Lots of data to better assess the decision making process.

[JW411]

RAT 5:

I presume you are also seeking the same information about the LAN Chile crew?

[JW411]

By the way, unlike RAT 5 and God knows how many sciolists out there, I have actually flown LAN Chile schedules! When I flew for Fred Laker about three thousand years ago, we had a brand new DC-10-30 (G-BGXF) painted in LAN Chile colours (and very nice it looked - until later).

We flew Santiago-Miami-JFK and Santiago-Rio-Madrid-Orly-Frankfurt.

I have three great memories:

1. The Chileans were amongst the nicest people I have ever met.

2. The cabin staff used to change at Madrid. I have this undying memory of two of the male cabin staff going all the way from Madrid to Turin by rail on their days off to buy Fiat car spares which went in the belly and were to be sold in Chile for a vast profit.

3. As already mentioned, 'XF had been painted in LAN Chile colours. It turned out that Fred Laker had been persuaded by one of the finishing companies to try a new type of paint that would eventually be water-soluble.

I was taxiing out at JFK one night in a Laker DC-10 when 'XF landed from Miami. It had been through a thunderstorm somewhere near Miami and half of the LAN Chile paint had come off! It really did not look good. A bit like a Rembrandt - best viewed from a distance.

The JFK Ground Controller asked me what airline that could possibly be?

"I wish I knew" said I.

Sorry RAT 5 to steal your thunder; back to you.

[Mikehotel152]

RAT 5

The report states that all three FR aircraft started the day in MAD, so one would presume that they were locally based. Mind you, there are lots of 'floaters' rotating into MAD for a week at a time.

It is probably not a relevant point though.

Familiarity with MAD might have led to complacency but the two weeks I spent operating out of that hell hole taught me to take an extra ton wheneve coming back to base!

[Cacophonix]

Any commercially savvy outfit will fly as they have to. Ryaniar are just such an outfit. They have nothing to answer to save the fact that they operate within the bounds of current legislation and the laws of morality!

Pilots are moral entities after all.