4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time
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
I highly doubt any airline would stipulate to their pilots that they are to hold at the destination until their FOB = minimum diversion fuel before they were to divert.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it (consistently) makes money. 
And it breaks the rules, which - from a commercial point of view - is fine by me because none of the "real" airlines have yet come up with a service that responds to my needs. As for loyalty? Well, I've just paid my highest price ever for a RA return ticket (50€) because even allowing for the 180km drive to an out-of-the-way airport (no parking charges) it's cheaper than driving to my local railway station, paying for parking and a 3-hour, 350km train-ride to a busy major airport so that I can pay three times the price to fly with a legacy airline and arrive at the same destination four hours later.
For understandable reasons, there is an obsession in the airline industry with SOPs, checklists and diverse regulations, but this obsession carries over into the business side of the operation risk-taking is essential. If EASA and the national agencies exclude risk-takers - as they do with their insistance on "financial criteria" for start-ups, then the established operators will always have the sky to themselves, write their own rules and leave us humble customers with precious little choice.
Whether Ryanair rattles that particular cage by highlighting poor ATC practices, challenging government policy across the EU or telling its pilots to keep fuel carried to a minimum and declare an emergency if things get tight, then good for Michael O'Leary. I can't wait for the day one can buy a 'plane ticket in SuperValu or SuperU.
And it breaks the rules, which - from a commercial point of view - is fine by me because none of the "real" airlines have yet come up with a service that responds to my needs. As for loyalty? Well, I've just paid my highest price ever for a RA return ticket (50€) because even allowing for the 180km drive to an out-of-the-way airport (no parking charges) it's cheaper than driving to my local railway station, paying for parking and a 3-hour, 350km train-ride to a busy major airport so that I can pay three times the price to fly with a legacy airline and arrive at the same destination four hours later.
For understandable reasons, there is an obsession in the airline industry with SOPs, checklists and diverse regulations, but this obsession carries over into the business side of the operation risk-taking is essential. If EASA and the national agencies exclude risk-takers - as they do with their insistance on "financial criteria" for start-ups, then the established operators will always have the sky to themselves, write their own rules and leave us humble customers with precious little choice.
Whether Ryanair rattles that particular cage by highlighting poor ATC practices, challenging government policy across the EU or telling its pilots to keep fuel carried to a minimum and declare an emergency if things get tight, then good for Michael O'Leary. I can't wait for the day one can buy a 'plane ticket in SuperValu or SuperU.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...telling its pilots to keep fuel carried to a minimum and declare an emergency if things get tight...
Squawk 7600:
You have become unbelievably boring. You are not getting your message over and not many of us are listening to you any more.
Studi:
I have trained many German pilots in my flying career and I have to say that
I have usually enjoyed the experience.
You, however, are about to go on my Ignore List.
I am sure that you will take that as a huge compliment and continue to bore the a**e off everyone else on pprune.
You have become unbelievably boring. You are not getting your message over and not many of us are listening to you any more.
Studi:
I have trained many German pilots in my flying career and I have to say that
I have usually enjoyed the experience.
You, however, are about to go on my Ignore List.
I am sure that you will take that as a huge compliment and continue to bore the a**e off everyone else on pprune.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Al M
Squawk 7600 - could you elaborate on that point please? The part about being illegal to hold in the weather conditions that evening? cheers.
Since we do not have any idea what your experience/qualifications are from your 'profile', may I suggest you help us and talk us through your thought processes if you decide to hold at MAD until you reach FP div fuel? EG
Why are you holding?
When do you expect to commence an approach?
What fuel would you expect to arrive with at DA R18 MAD?
Would that be 'legal'?
Are you a pilot?
Originally Posted by Enjoy the view
but I wouldn't think that they waited for the "displayed" minimum reserve fuel to initiate the diversion.
Last edited by BOAC; 30th Sep 2012 at 10:36.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens if all airlines do this? You'll end up with every inbound aircraft declaring an emergency and then get into a hell of a mess. No matter if you've declared an emergency or not there's still a limit to how many aircraft a runway can handle in a given amount of time.
From the Mail on line.
Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy after making THREE emergency landings because planes almost ran out
By Ray Massey
PUBLISHED:19:55 GMT, 20 September 2012| UPDATED: 06:34 GMT, 21 September 2012
Budget airline Ryanair has been ordered to 'review' the amount of fuel it carries after three of its planes – including one from the UK - were forced to make 'Mayday' emergency landings in Spain when they started to run out .
The airline was operating with a level of fuel that was 'close to the minimum' required in the case of a diversion, they said.
Three Ryanair Boeing 737-800 aircraft heading to Madrid were forced to make emergency landings after being diverted to Valencia because of thunderstorms over the Spanish capital.
Ryanair was operating with a level of fuel that was 'close to the minimum' required in the case of a diversion
One of the three affected planes was heading from Stansted Airport to Madrid when the diversions and emergency landings occurred at Valencia on July 26 this year.
The Irish Aviation Authority Report noted: 'All three aircraft declared an Emergency (Mayday) when the calculated useable fuel on landing at Valencia was less than the final reserve.'
The watchdogs accept that all three Ryanair planes left for Madrid 'with fuel in excess of Flight plan requirements' and also with fuel 'in excess of the minimum diversion fuel' required, so remained strictly within the rules.
However, the IAA also noted: 'Diverting with fuel close to the minimum diversion fuel in the circumstances presented on the evening in question was likely to present challenges for the crew.'
Ryanair Chief executive Michael O'Leary said the airline's safety standards are on a par with the safest airlines in Europe
It has also questioned whether the current fuel limit rules give passenger jets enough latitude land safely in the event of a diversion from Madrid – and asked Spanish aviation chiefs to look at them again.
Spanish pilot union leaders have accused Ryanair of 'operating on the very limits of legality' in the way it fuels its planes. But Ryanair has consistently denied any wrong-doing and says the report vindicates their stance that its planes fly within the rules.
In its recommendations for the future the IAA said: 'Ryanair to review fuel policy and consider issuing guidance to Crew with respect to fuel when operating into busy airports with mixed aircraft operators and types, particularly in poor weather conditions when diversions are likely.'
The watchdogs said the airline should use such scenarios in its pilot training 'with particular emphasis on diversion management.'
It also calls on the authorities to 'review delays into Madrid to consider if additional fuel should be recommended or required to be carried in normal operations.'
The report said the three Ryanair passenger jets were put into an initial holding pattern to the Southwest of Madrid 'which increased the diversion time' before they were diverted to Valencia.
The crews did declare an Emergency in line with oprtational procedures when they became aware that the calculated amount of useable fuel for landing at Valencia 'was less than the final reserve.'
All three aircraft landed at Valencia without further incident, said the IAA watchdogs.
Commenting on the diverted plane from Stansted – flight FR5998 – the report says that as they descended in 'severe weather' to land at Madrid 'the captain decided to discontinue the approach as he noted that two aircraft ahead had performed a go-around' – effectively a landing which is aborted close to the runway.
The Stansted plane was then diverted to Valencia where the air traffic controllers 'seemed overwhelmed with the traffic load.'
Told that they were facing a 10 minute delay at Valencia, 'the crew declared an Emergency (Mayday).'
They followed in two other jets which had also declared an emergency – an Easyjet and a Lan-Chile A340.
In Madrid Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary said:'We welcome this official report into the Valencia procedures on the 26th July last which confirms that all three Ryanair aircraft carried extra fuel and that all three complied fully with EU Ops procedures.'
'We also welcome this week's joint statement of the Irish and Spanish Transport Ministries which confirms that Ryanair's safety standards are on a par with the safest airlines in Europe.'
The IAA recommendation came after Irish and Spanish aviation officials met in Dublin this week following comments by Spanish authorities about incidents in their airspace involving Europe's largest budget airline.
Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy after making THREE emergency landings because planes almost ran out
By Ray Massey
PUBLISHED:19:55 GMT, 20 September 2012| UPDATED: 06:34 GMT, 21 September 2012
Budget airline Ryanair has been ordered to 'review' the amount of fuel it carries after three of its planes – including one from the UK - were forced to make 'Mayday' emergency landings in Spain when they started to run out .
The airline was operating with a level of fuel that was 'close to the minimum' required in the case of a diversion, they said.
Three Ryanair Boeing 737-800 aircraft heading to Madrid were forced to make emergency landings after being diverted to Valencia because of thunderstorms over the Spanish capital.
Ryanair was operating with a level of fuel that was 'close to the minimum' required in the case of a diversion
One of the three affected planes was heading from Stansted Airport to Madrid when the diversions and emergency landings occurred at Valencia on July 26 this year.
The Irish Aviation Authority Report noted: 'All three aircraft declared an Emergency (Mayday) when the calculated useable fuel on landing at Valencia was less than the final reserve.'
The watchdogs accept that all three Ryanair planes left for Madrid 'with fuel in excess of Flight plan requirements' and also with fuel 'in excess of the minimum diversion fuel' required, so remained strictly within the rules.
However, the IAA also noted: 'Diverting with fuel close to the minimum diversion fuel in the circumstances presented on the evening in question was likely to present challenges for the crew.'
Ryanair Chief executive Michael O'Leary said the airline's safety standards are on a par with the safest airlines in Europe
It has also questioned whether the current fuel limit rules give passenger jets enough latitude land safely in the event of a diversion from Madrid – and asked Spanish aviation chiefs to look at them again.
Spanish pilot union leaders have accused Ryanair of 'operating on the very limits of legality' in the way it fuels its planes. But Ryanair has consistently denied any wrong-doing and says the report vindicates their stance that its planes fly within the rules.
In its recommendations for the future the IAA said: 'Ryanair to review fuel policy and consider issuing guidance to Crew with respect to fuel when operating into busy airports with mixed aircraft operators and types, particularly in poor weather conditions when diversions are likely.'
The watchdogs said the airline should use such scenarios in its pilot training 'with particular emphasis on diversion management.'
It also calls on the authorities to 'review delays into Madrid to consider if additional fuel should be recommended or required to be carried in normal operations.'
The report said the three Ryanair passenger jets were put into an initial holding pattern to the Southwest of Madrid 'which increased the diversion time' before they were diverted to Valencia.
The crews did declare an Emergency in line with oprtational procedures when they became aware that the calculated amount of useable fuel for landing at Valencia 'was less than the final reserve.'
All three aircraft landed at Valencia without further incident, said the IAA watchdogs.
Commenting on the diverted plane from Stansted – flight FR5998 – the report says that as they descended in 'severe weather' to land at Madrid 'the captain decided to discontinue the approach as he noted that two aircraft ahead had performed a go-around' – effectively a landing which is aborted close to the runway.
The Stansted plane was then diverted to Valencia where the air traffic controllers 'seemed overwhelmed with the traffic load.'
Told that they were facing a 10 minute delay at Valencia, 'the crew declared an Emergency (Mayday).'
They followed in two other jets which had also declared an emergency – an Easyjet and a Lan-Chile A340.
In Madrid Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary said:'We welcome this official report into the Valencia procedures on the 26th July last which confirms that all three Ryanair aircraft carried extra fuel and that all three complied fully with EU Ops procedures.'
'We also welcome this week's joint statement of the Irish and Spanish Transport Ministries which confirms that Ryanair's safety standards are on a par with the safest airlines in Europe.'
The IAA recommendation came after Irish and Spanish aviation officials met in Dublin this week following comments by Spanish authorities about incidents in their airspace involving Europe's largest budget airline.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am told that Spanish ATC was in meltdown and stopped responding to repeated requests to divert from the Ryanair aircraft, this resulted in at least one Ryanair aircraft telling ATC that he was taking up a heading for the diversion airfield.
Perhaps someone has the ATC tapes and we can find out is the Spanish government outrage towards Ryanair is justified or is this an attempt to cover up the shortcomings of the ATC system.
If one reads the Spanish press Ryanair are getting a slagging out of all proportion to the incidents that they have had and I am wondering what is driving this ?
Perhaps someone has the ATC tapes and we can find out is the Spanish government outrage towards Ryanair is justified or is this an attempt to cover up the shortcomings of the ATC system.
If one reads the Spanish press Ryanair are getting a slagging out of all proportion to the incidents that they have had and I am wondering what is driving this ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Colchester
Age: 77
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C
'If one reads the Spanish press Ryanair is getting a slagging out of all proportion to the incidents they have had and I wonder what is driving this.'
Ryanair is now the largest airline in Spain. The Spanish economy is in a parlous state and, as any pilot flying in Spanish airspace on a regular basis will tell you, Spanish ATC is a shambles. It is not uncommon for Spanish aircraft to be given priority.
This is a an attempt by the Spanish press to divert attention from some serious shortcomings within their own country.
'If one reads the Spanish press Ryanair is getting a slagging out of all proportion to the incidents they have had and I wonder what is driving this.'
Ryanair is now the largest airline in Spain. The Spanish economy is in a parlous state and, as any pilot flying in Spanish airspace on a regular basis will tell you, Spanish ATC is a shambles. It is not uncommon for Spanish aircraft to be given priority.
This is a an attempt by the Spanish press to divert attention from some serious shortcomings within their own country.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DW
From the Mail on line.
Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy after making THREE emergency landings because planes almost ran out
By Ray Massey
Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy after making THREE emergency landings because planes almost ran out
By Ray Massey
Typical DM hysterics, and quite possibly incorrect reporting too - I do NOT read CLEARLY that EasyJet declared an emergency, and no RY a/c 'almost ran out'. 29.xx minutes is not 'running out'!.
Here is the link to the IAA report. I suggest everyone reads it before posting?
http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2012...alencia_EN.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In the sun
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice that newspapers, including the Mail, include accusations and/or quotes from thr Spanish Pilots union. Are any FR pilots members of the Spanish union or are these Spanish union sources just quoting based on rumour and what they have read in forums like this. I thought FR was a non-union company but maybe that has changed.
I'm currently in the process of refining a planning system for a couple of specialist users, who use an earlier Airbus type.
I note from the FCOM Vol. 2 that:
Using the destination-to-alternate planning tables for a 150 nm diversion (roughly the same as Madrid to Valencia), the minimum fuel state at which to commence the go-around at destination in order to arrive at the alternate with final reserve only is 4589 kg, assuming landing at the alternate at the reference landing weight. However, Spain with summer thunderstorms? If you assume you're stuck down at FL100 and are given an extra 50 nm of vectoring, might well need engine anti-icing and normal air conditioning in ISA+15 conditions, plus an IFR approach at the alternate, the figure rises by another 1080 kg....
What assumptions are normally made for diversions to alternate aerodromes these days? I imagine that some flight dispatch organisation plans the fuel required, but do they take everything into account, or just use the basic figure corresponding to the optimum diversion flight level and direct distance?
I note from the FCOM Vol. 2 that:
- No destination to alternate diversion fuel planning figures are published for diversion distances of less than 100nm.
- No corrections for head/tail wind component are published for diversion distances of less than 200nm.
- The flight profile assumes that the diversion to the alternate will be flown at long range cruise speed at not less than FL100.
- A VFR approach is assumed.
- Corrections must be made for deviation from reference landing weight, ISA deviation, use of anti-icing and use of 'normal' air conditioning.
Using the destination-to-alternate planning tables for a 150 nm diversion (roughly the same as Madrid to Valencia), the minimum fuel state at which to commence the go-around at destination in order to arrive at the alternate with final reserve only is 4589 kg, assuming landing at the alternate at the reference landing weight. However, Spain with summer thunderstorms? If you assume you're stuck down at FL100 and are given an extra 50 nm of vectoring, might well need engine anti-icing and normal air conditioning in ISA+15 conditions, plus an IFR approach at the alternate, the figure rises by another 1080 kg....
What assumptions are normally made for diversions to alternate aerodromes these days? I imagine that some flight dispatch organisation plans the fuel required, but do they take everything into account, or just use the basic figure corresponding to the optimum diversion flight level and direct distance?
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Oct 2012 at 08:00.
@ BOAC - I posted it because the bickering on this forum was losing sight of the facts and this was the most factual report I could find, notwithstanding the journalist's rhetoric.
But thanks for the IAA link, which I hadn't seen. It's useful and as a manager in an airline where at our home base we often encounter similar conditions as experienced at MAD that night, I have circulated the IAA report around the company to reinforce my view that our own fuel policy should not be questioned.
I too applaud the RYR captains for thier decisions and the way they handled the situation. However, with TEMPO PROB40 TS, I would have to question the decisions on the amount of extra fuel taken - especially considering they all appear to be MAD based crew (4th sectors for each). In our operation (HKG), I would expect most crews to decide to take at least 30 minutes extra (If the dispatchers haven't already decided to add the extra 30 minutes) when faced with this report and wouldn't be suprised if they opted for as much as an hour. Personally, I would opt for 45 minutes giving enough for half an hour holding and a missed approach. I notice that the extra taken by the three RYR crews was 892, 613 and 283kgs. The stated RYR fuel policy sounds of having to explain why more than 300kg was taken sounds like it might have influenced the lower figure - and I don't think the two crews who took more took enough. The IAA concludes this in the report - RYRs fuel policy needs to be reviewed. Managers with a agenda of cost saving should not compromise flight safety.
But thanks for the IAA link, which I hadn't seen. It's useful and as a manager in an airline where at our home base we often encounter similar conditions as experienced at MAD that night, I have circulated the IAA report around the company to reinforce my view that our own fuel policy should not be questioned.
I too applaud the RYR captains for thier decisions and the way they handled the situation. However, with TEMPO PROB40 TS, I would have to question the decisions on the amount of extra fuel taken - especially considering they all appear to be MAD based crew (4th sectors for each). In our operation (HKG), I would expect most crews to decide to take at least 30 minutes extra (If the dispatchers haven't already decided to add the extra 30 minutes) when faced with this report and wouldn't be suprised if they opted for as much as an hour. Personally, I would opt for 45 minutes giving enough for half an hour holding and a missed approach. I notice that the extra taken by the three RYR crews was 892, 613 and 283kgs. The stated RYR fuel policy sounds of having to explain why more than 300kg was taken sounds like it might have influenced the lower figure - and I don't think the two crews who took more took enough. The IAA concludes this in the report - RYRs fuel policy needs to be reviewed. Managers with a agenda of cost saving should not compromise flight safety.
@ BEagle.
You have to remeber that FCOMs are operator and regulatory authority specific and I suspect you have one of these rather than a generic FCOM - or I seriously hope so and this isn't Airbus policy!
In our operation, the alternate route is planned at the destination landing weight for actual met conditions for the company route to the alternate at cost index zero with eng anti ice on. We have planned and pre-loaded routes for all the nominated alternates and the flight plan defaults to the regular alternate. If a different one is planned, the route can be selected in the FMGS and reviewed to see if the fuel burn is correct.
The route plan on the paper flight plan to the alternate is assuming the standard missed approach from the runway with the shortest arrival arriving at the alternate using the runway also with the shortest arrival. The FMGC will plan the fuel with the actual track distances and the crew have the option of changing the alternate fuel if they see fit.
You have to remeber that FCOMs are operator and regulatory authority specific and I suspect you have one of these rather than a generic FCOM - or I seriously hope so and this isn't Airbus policy!
In our operation, the alternate route is planned at the destination landing weight for actual met conditions for the company route to the alternate at cost index zero with eng anti ice on. We have planned and pre-loaded routes for all the nominated alternates and the flight plan defaults to the regular alternate. If a different one is planned, the route can be selected in the FMGS and reviewed to see if the fuel burn is correct.
The route plan on the paper flight plan to the alternate is assuming the standard missed approach from the runway with the shortest arrival arriving at the alternate using the runway also with the shortest arrival. The FMGC will plan the fuel with the actual track distances and the crew have the option of changing the alternate fuel if they see fit.
While the basic details have already been set out on this thread, ie GA and m/app procedure, climb to cruise and full STAR into the alternate, like BEagle, I would be interested to hear exactly what assumptions are made when calculating fuel for diversion.
Ultimately though, even a better calculated diversion fuel requirement could not cover the scenario where multiple aircraft are diverting from a major airport with poor ATC to a minor airport whose ATC is swamped. The amount needed in that case is determined by a pilot in receipt of all the facts at the time.
Finally, Dan, is it not the case that the amount of extra fuel is almost irrelevant if that fuel is burned before the diversion commences? Had these aircraft diverted immediately after discontinuing their MAD approaches they would have had more fuel at VLC. So it comes down to airmanship backed up by guidance from up on high as to when to commence a diversion.
Ultimately though, even a better calculated diversion fuel requirement could not cover the scenario where multiple aircraft are diverting from a major airport with poor ATC to a minor airport whose ATC is swamped. The amount needed in that case is determined by a pilot in receipt of all the facts at the time.
Finally, Dan, is it not the case that the amount of extra fuel is almost irrelevant if that fuel is burned before the diversion commences? Had these aircraft diverted immediately after discontinuing their MAD approaches they would have had more fuel at VLC. So it comes down to airmanship backed up by guidance from up on high as to when to commence a diversion.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly - you can carry 5 hours extra 'holding' fuel, hold for 5 hours and then divert since the EAT was +5:30 or you carry 5 mins extra and divert immediately.
- we do not recognise the 'missed approach' in EUOPS as part of 'extra fuel' - is this an HK thing?
Originally Posted by DW
I would opt for 45 minutes giving enough for half an hour holding and a missed approach.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IAA report gives fuel on landing to the nearest Kg.
I'm just wondering how they worked this out.
Also, by quoting "landing" fuel, I assume that they meant "arriving on stand" fuel, which could be 100 or even 200 Kgs less than fuel on touchdown. I know it's splitting hairs, but standing up in court, I'd rather be 1Kg over the line than 1kg under, especially if the whole world is trying to judge me.
Boeing fuel gauge errors notwithstanding, etc.
I'm just wondering how they worked this out.
Also, by quoting "landing" fuel, I assume that they meant "arriving on stand" fuel, which could be 100 or even 200 Kgs less than fuel on touchdown. I know it's splitting hairs, but standing up in court, I'd rather be 1Kg over the line than 1kg under, especially if the whole world is trying to judge me.
Boeing fuel gauge errors notwithstanding, etc.