4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enjoy the view:
It seems completely flipping obvious to me, that the higher the total fuel bill, the less an individual decision to ensure safe operation will impact, as a percentage. Using the figures quoted in this thread, close enough for the sake of argument, half an hours' extra holding costs about 30 quid.
The bean counters say they accept diversions and their sums still say carry minimum fuel. Then again if they were that smart they'd probably be airline pilots or something.
And Caco:
The company certainly will have something to answer for when the moral entity, acting within the legislation dumps 189 paying punters into the undershoot, a la Avianca.
It seems completely flipping obvious to me, that the higher the total fuel bill, the less an individual decision to ensure safe operation will impact, as a percentage. Using the figures quoted in this thread, close enough for the sake of argument, half an hours' extra holding costs about 30 quid.
The bean counters say they accept diversions and their sums still say carry minimum fuel. Then again if they were that smart they'd probably be airline pilots or something.
And Caco:
The company certainly will have something to answer for when the moral entity, acting within the legislation dumps 189 paying punters into the undershoot, a la Avianca.
Last edited by 16024; 27th Sep 2012 at 22:23.
''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!''
And they will explore and exploit any opportunity to reduce the minimums and reduce costs. This treatment of the limits as a target is enforced on the Captains against their better judgement and experience, by fuel tables and "chats" (without tea and biscuits) in the office.
The result is that to stay "competitive", other operations do the same and now we have a number of aircraft all approaching an airport at the same time with bad weather - all who are on minimums and have to declare an emergency to be safe when the more sensible would have been to carry more fuel. However, the Captains are afraid to do this.
We have seen the limits of the system stretched in this incident. If nothing is done to regulate this policy, the probable result will be an aircraft having to put down somehwere at other than an airfield with a high likelhood of loss of life.
And they will explore and exploit any opportunity to reduce the minimums and reduce costs. This treatment of the limits as a target is enforced on the Captains against their better judgement and experience, by fuel tables and "chats" (without tea and biscuits) in the office.
The result is that to stay "competitive", other operations do the same and now we have a number of aircraft all approaching an airport at the same time with bad weather - all who are on minimums and have to declare an emergency to be safe when the more sensible would have been to carry more fuel. However, the Captains are afraid to do this.
We have seen the limits of the system stretched in this incident. If nothing is done to regulate this policy, the probable result will be an aircraft having to put down somehwere at other than an airfield with a high likelhood of loss of life.
''Reading the threads here you'll find lots of pilots who dream of flying KC-10's or KC-135's, tanker planes!''
A common misconception is that tankers always have a lot of fuel. It's true that they usually have a lot of fuel when they take off, but a tanker pilot's perfect trip is to get airborne with 80 tonnes and land three hours later on fumes. Their job is to give it away and will usually oblige a fighter who wan't just a little bit extra. I flew tankers for about ten years and always tell my FOs that I won't be offended if they insist on carrying a bit more fuel.
Beware of ex-tanker pilots - they think nothing of landing on minimums!
A common misconception is that tankers always have a lot of fuel. It's true that they usually have a lot of fuel when they take off, but a tanker pilot's perfect trip is to get airborne with 80 tonnes and land three hours later on fumes. Their job is to give it away and will usually oblige a fighter who wan't just a little bit extra. I flew tankers for about ten years and always tell my FOs that I won't be offended if they insist on carrying a bit more fuel.
Beware of ex-tanker pilots - they think nothing of landing on minimums!
Hi Dan!
Lest others think that AAR crews are cavalier with their fuel planning, if the mission has gone well, the aircraft should arrive at destination with any unused contingency, plus alternate fuel.
For a typical modern tanker, the alternate fuel calculation includes the go-around at destination, climb to optimum altitude, cruise at long range cruise speed, descent, approach and landing, to arrive with not less than 30 min 'green-dot' holding fuel at 1500 ft. The fuel used to the alternate will be corrected for ISA dev and significant wind, as well as deviation from the reference landing mass value.
Lest others think that AAR crews are cavalier with their fuel planning, if the mission has gone well, the aircraft should arrive at destination with any unused contingency, plus alternate fuel.
For a typical modern tanker, the alternate fuel calculation includes the go-around at destination, climb to optimum altitude, cruise at long range cruise speed, descent, approach and landing, to arrive with not less than 30 min 'green-dot' holding fuel at 1500 ft. The fuel used to the alternate will be corrected for ISA dev and significant wind, as well as deviation from the reference landing mass value.
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Sep 2012 at 07:22.
The odds on the alligators showing up in this particular swamp were always going to be higher. The endless posts on pprune about Ryanair and spanish air traffic control demonstrate there is no smoke without fire. No individual component can be singled out as being to blame but the combination was nearly incendiary.
The authorities say getting below minimum reserve or thinking you will is a big deal. Military pilots are of course used to much greater risks. The point is that Ryanair is not the military and its passengers have a right to expect they will not routinely be involved in an emergency situation.
This is a system problem, which hopefully all parties will learn from. The fuel coaches (as some airlines call their experts) will hopefully focus more attention on what to do in the case of diversions with widespread bad weather. Diversions are fortuately rare occurences for most airline pilots. More emphasis encouraging people that diverting with more than minimum fuel in this kind of situation would be a good start.
The authorities say getting below minimum reserve or thinking you will is a big deal. Military pilots are of course used to much greater risks. The point is that Ryanair is not the military and its passengers have a right to expect they will not routinely be involved in an emergency situation.
This is a system problem, which hopefully all parties will learn from. The fuel coaches (as some airlines call their experts) will hopefully focus more attention on what to do in the case of diversions with widespread bad weather. Diversions are fortuately rare occurences for most airline pilots. More emphasis encouraging people that diverting with more than minimum fuel in this kind of situation would be a good start.
Driving at 30 mph down a street where school's turning out may be legal but probably is less safe for pupils going home.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it makes sense.
Airlines surely have a duty of care towards their passengers?
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it makes sense.
Airlines surely have a duty of care towards their passengers?
From BEagle: "Lest others think that AAR crews are cavalier with their fuel planning".
No of course they aren't - and the criteria you mentioned are exactly the minima my current operation stipulate. Except that we don't use them! The bare legal minimum has little flexiblilty and no 'fat' should something go wrong - like mulitple aircraft all diverting on minimum fuel. The tanker pilots would happily go down to these minimums in the right circumstances. in fact, they will sometimes on a trail (a long distance fighter deployment) give fuel away knowing that they have to divert - for if the formation fuel burn has been higher that expected (quite common) it's preferable for the tanker to divert that a fighter which may have live weapons or requirements such a liquid oxygen. And tankers aren't carrying fare paying passengers.
As I mentioned, my current employer doesn't cut to the minimum. We have a policy of aiming to land with at least one hour's fuel left (2.4T for an A320) and the fuel plan always has built in extra to take it to this and usually more. Admittedly, my home base has quite severe weather from time to time, is in a mountainous area and had political considerations which make some nearby alternates unusable, but safety is always put ahead of profit. I have never heard of a pliot being castigated for carryng too much fuel in ten years at my company.
I did a JAA A320 rating last year to keep my JAR licence current. The TIRE gave me flight plan from his company - a Low Cost Carrier. It was printed that morning, from the live weather and I was suprised to see the fuel from LGW to AMS was 3.9T arriving with 1.9T using Rotterdam as the alternate with only the 5% contingency added. I can happily state I have never landed an A320 with less than 2T in 5000hrs on type.
No of course they aren't - and the criteria you mentioned are exactly the minima my current operation stipulate. Except that we don't use them! The bare legal minimum has little flexiblilty and no 'fat' should something go wrong - like mulitple aircraft all diverting on minimum fuel. The tanker pilots would happily go down to these minimums in the right circumstances. in fact, they will sometimes on a trail (a long distance fighter deployment) give fuel away knowing that they have to divert - for if the formation fuel burn has been higher that expected (quite common) it's preferable for the tanker to divert that a fighter which may have live weapons or requirements such a liquid oxygen. And tankers aren't carrying fare paying passengers.
As I mentioned, my current employer doesn't cut to the minimum. We have a policy of aiming to land with at least one hour's fuel left (2.4T for an A320) and the fuel plan always has built in extra to take it to this and usually more. Admittedly, my home base has quite severe weather from time to time, is in a mountainous area and had political considerations which make some nearby alternates unusable, but safety is always put ahead of profit. I have never heard of a pliot being castigated for carryng too much fuel in ten years at my company.
I did a JAA A320 rating last year to keep my JAR licence current. The TIRE gave me flight plan from his company - a Low Cost Carrier. It was printed that morning, from the live weather and I was suprised to see the fuel from LGW to AMS was 3.9T arriving with 1.9T using Rotterdam as the alternate with only the 5% contingency added. I can happily state I have never landed an A320 with less than 2T in 5000hrs on type.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulations don't seem to allow for additional contingencies. Diverting to an alternate is often associated with additional weather diversions and ATC sorting out multiple diversions to same alternate. Each of these can add considerably to the alternate burn.
Sometimes alternate itself can have good weather, but many aircraft will need to backtrack to exit, meaning 4 nm separation on final is insufficient causing additional high burn at low level. A go around due an unexpected missed exit by preceeding aircraft when already at 30 minutes would be no fun, especially if other aircraft are also claiming very low fuel.
Any captain who always accepts the company's computer flight plan minimum fuel is a idiot. Company pressure to accept is intolerable and pilots should, as required, adjust fuel to their own requirements. Resist pressure, regardless of any conception of company consequences.
Sometimes alternate itself can have good weather, but many aircraft will need to backtrack to exit, meaning 4 nm separation on final is insufficient causing additional high burn at low level. A go around due an unexpected missed exit by preceeding aircraft when already at 30 minutes would be no fun, especially if other aircraft are also claiming very low fuel.
Any captain who always accepts the company's computer flight plan minimum fuel is a idiot. Company pressure to accept is intolerable and pilots should, as required, adjust fuel to their own requirements. Resist pressure, regardless of any conception of company consequences.
1600 flights daily with challenging operational conditions, smaller secondary airports, non precision approaches, circle to land, short runways, narrow runways.... on daily basis....
As a matter of fact, most FR pilots have an extensive experience of diversions, probably well above average of many major airlines flying into large airports.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dark side of the force
Age: 55
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All has been said, but: what happens if everyone on that day declares emergency? and I mean all the traffics at VLC
You are on ATC: who gets priority?
You are the pilot: Are you going to jump over the rest of your colleagues?
Asking for a mayday implies that you get priority but, what happens if your priority gets others in the same situation? Thatīs airmanship.
You are on ATC: who gets priority?
You are the pilot: Are you going to jump over the rest of your colleagues?
Asking for a mayday implies that you get priority but, what happens if your priority gets others in the same situation? Thatīs airmanship.
Well, as far as I'm concerned a 'real' airline is one which:
- Treats its passengers with courtesy
- Does not abandon its passengers to their own fate should the aircraft become unserviceable
- Has a decent level of customer services
- Does not indulge in high pressure sales tactics throughout the flight
- Does not cut every possible corner, in order to maximise profits
- Does not challenge its commanders' fuel decisions
- Does not consider a Mayday event to be 'routine'
- Is run by someone who both respects and is respected by customers and employees alike
- Employs its own aircrew
- Employs its own cabin crew
BEagle: Have you noticed that the "apologists" for the FR flights actions on that day always quote the fuel values pertaining to the nearest 10kgs. when even the manufacturers acknowledge that there are levels of inaccuracy inherent in their fuel gauging systems. Bit of a hobby horse of mine this but it worries me that there are crew around who really believe thay can rely on their fuel gauge readings 100%!!
- Treats its passengers with courtesy
- Does not abandon its passengers to their own fate should the aircraft become unserviceable
- Has a decent level of customer services
- Does not indulge in high pressure sales tactics throughout the flight
- Does not cut every possible corner, in order to maximise profits
- Does not challenge its commanders' fuel decisions
- Does not consider a Mayday event to be 'routine'
- Is run by someone who both respects and is respected by customers and employees alike
- Employs its own aircrew
- Employs its own cabin crew
Then again BA uses its PR budget and has done so for years to upgrade Editors and Journalists to ensure good PR.
Based on the above then BA is not a real airline unless you call abandoning passengers when its crew go on strike yet again, flying when engines out from LAX, abuses customer data and is convicted in attempting to get passengers to change airlines, gets its maintenance so screwed up that a pilot gets sucked half way out a cockpit window, lands on no fuel......................and the list goes on.
1. Industrial action can affect any airline (apart from RYR which is not unionised....yet!).
2. The engine out from LAX has been debated before - depends which side you sit on but I think using this case in the argument is a trifle disingenuous!
3. Yes there was a dirty tricks campaign but I think that was from a different era.
4. Every airline has maintenance issues from time to time.
(My pith helmet is suitable donned!).
I recently went to a half day conference on marketing. The speaker was very well qualified. He said that since 2008 there had been a major change in how consumers decide who to purchase from. They are much more interested in knowing what a Company believes in and why they do what they do (not this fuzzy mission statement c**p by the way!).
In many ways Ryanair can be described as very successful and on the whole it does what is says on the tin.
They may have millions of passengers flying with them on a monthly/daily basis but what loyalty do these passengers have to the brand "Ryanair"?
If another operator comes along who can offer a better and more transparent service (which could even cost more!) I am sure many would change their chosen carrier overnight.
Last edited by fireflybob; 29th Sep 2012 at 09:46.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even O'Leary can't change the EU-OPS
He just wiggles around, or ignores them.
A good example being failure to have passengers occupying the overwing exits unless they paid extra. If nobody was prepared to pay, then the emegency exits went empty, until, one assumes the IAA grew some and said "Oi, O'Leary, no!" or words to that effect.
Enjoy the view: I don't think anyone is criticising your ability or experience, but when the Cheif Pilot, genuinely fine fellow that he is, lets this sort of thing go until the regulator allegedly steps in, what hope does the average pilot on the line have.
I know you are allowed to carry extra fuel if you really, really can justify it, and have provided evidence to back it up. But you can't deny the constant drip, drip, nagging pressure not to. And I'm sure there's no other company in the western world (possibly not anywhere) where you would get a letter for being 30kgs over the allowed "without justification" figure.
That's not a misprint.
I still cherish the letter: it reminds me how much better off I am now...
A good example being failure to have passengers occupying the overwing exits unless they paid extra. If nobody was prepared to pay, then the emegency exits went empty, until, one assumes the IAA grew some and said "Oi, O'Leary, no!" or words to that effect.
Enjoy the view: I don't think anyone is criticising your ability or experience, but when the Cheif Pilot, genuinely fine fellow that he is, lets this sort of thing go until the regulator allegedly steps in, what hope does the average pilot on the line have.
I know you are allowed to carry extra fuel if you really, really can justify it, and have provided evidence to back it up. But you can't deny the constant drip, drip, nagging pressure not to. And I'm sure there's no other company in the western world (possibly not anywhere) where you would get a letter for being 30kgs over the allowed "without justification" figure.
That's not a misprint.
I still cherish the letter: it reminds me how much better off I am now...