4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time

[FRying]

Yes, the stranger. It is SOOOO unsmart ! It is ridiculously stupid as well.

As you outlined, it limits your options. And the fact you won't be the only one in the sky could well put you in deep trouble. The Ryanair guys have been lucky : no go arounds (own or other acft's), no CBs building up in VLC as well, no contaminated runway, no failure, no other aircraft calling for mayday, etc...

Imagine EVERYONE takes minimum fuel, which is normal according to you. Then Ryanair airplanes wouldn't have been granted any priority. Which means what ? They would have been holding an extra 15 to 20 minutes ? And commited to land, no go around allowed, which MUST remain an option in your mind at ALL TIMES !

Reading Ryanair's PR people, everyone should be happy as the 738s landed with the minimum fuel which must be around 1000 kilograms, 500 kilos in each wing. How wonderful ! Taking 500 to 1000 kgs will cost what ? 5 pounds ? 10 pounds ? Even it costs 50 pounds on some routes, then what ? Is our industry so tight as to feel more harmed by 50 pounds than by a dangerous situation ?

Come on, that's ridiculous. I think leaving with minimum fuel + 100/200 kgs is fairly standard when all is well. Now, leaving with that amount when destination is fairly risky is not a matter of costing a bit less or a bit more. It means putting extra probability to put 180 people's lives at risk.

[the_stranger]

Again, I wouldn't do it, but does minimum fuel make it automatically unsafe?
In my opinion not. The reason I would take more fuel is not due to safety, but due to not wanting to divert if not really needed.

In the case of only the destination airport covered in TS, in the western part of Europe there are more suitable airports then p2f candidates. It just requires a constant and vigilant watch on the weather conditions at destination and a number of surrounding airports, as well as airports enroute.

Offcourse real life is never as black and white as a internet discussion, but again I will state that flying to a TS covered busy airport with minimum fuel is not usafe, allthough usually not very clever.

More fuel does not equal more options in all circumstances. A decision to divert a little earlier is the same as taking extra fuel. If approaching a sort of closed airport due to TS, you know what fuel you need to be at your alternate and have 30 minutes left. What stops you from diverting earlier then that point?

Minimum fuel does NOT equal a low fuel emergency while diverting. You ask for priority when the amount of fuel on landing is less then 30 minutes, not before. So if you do your job right, that wouldn't happen, apart from unforseen cicumstances. (but those can happen on every flight, CAVOK or not).

Come on, that's ridiculous. I think leaving with minimum fuel + 100/200 kgs is fairly standard when all is well. Now, leaving with that amount when destination is fairly risky is not a matter of costing a bit less or a bit more. It means putting extra probability to put 180 people's lives at risk.

I can tell you, 90% if not approaching 99% of the flights in our company (at least the European division) take off with bare minimum fuel, which is trip plus altn plus final reserve (30mins) plus 5% cont fuel (with a minimum of 5 mins).
No more, no less. Having said that, taking extra fuel is in my company never a problem, never asked to explain, all up to the captain. And I do take some extra, but only on certain (few) flights where I can expect holdings since diverting will cause massive disruptions in the schedule, both mine as the company's. But I do NOT take a extra amount just for safety above the minimum calculated by our flightplanners.

[fireflybob]

More fuel does not equal more options in all circumstances. A decision to divert a little earlier is the same as taking extra fuel.

But carriage of extra fuel means you have extra holding for destination and therefore makes commercial sense - I thought the idea was to get pax to their intended destination wherever possible!

With talk of PROB40 TEMPO TS I would be thinking in terms of taking at least an extra one hour's holding as TEMPO means a change of up to one hour and I would therefore want flexibility to hold for an extra hour's holding so I stand a fighting chance of getting pax to where they want to go!!

Are pilots becoming so brain washed that they cannot think for themselves - what a sorry state of affairs? The only person that decides on a final fuel figure is the Captain!

One thing is for sure - these machines don't run very well on air!

[the_stranger]

You should not depart with the full expectation of diversion at destination. Unless you have two destination alternates where a safe landing can be assumed.

I depart with the fuel I think I need to complete my trip from A to B, while during the flight checking if I can complete that trip or have to divert with 30 minutes left in tanks.
Thats why we do fuelchecks.

I know the airports I fly in, and in my part of the world there are so many suitable airports, diversion at any stage of the flight is (almost) never a problem.
If for some reason there are problems, you either take extra fuel, or decide to divert earlier. Both viable and safe options, regardless of you took extra fuel.

But carriage of extra fuel means you have extra holding for destination and therefore makes commercial sense - I thought the idea was to get pax to their intended destination wherever possible!

I never said it was wise to go with minimum fuel always. In fact, I said it would be smarter to do so, because that would safe money by not having to divert (as often).

But a commercial reason is a totally different thing than safety. The only thing I wanted to say was that taking minimum fuel in any situation does not have to be unsafe.
Our company has calculated with figures from past flights that a certain amount of fuel "extra" is needed to "assure" 99% of the flights do not have to divert to have 30 minutes remaining. That is, together with the usual required fuel, the amount they want us to take along as a minimum. The chance, and therefore the costs of diverting is taken into account by "management". So theoretically, I only have to take that amount to "be sure" I arrive at destination well within limits in 99% of the flights.

Are pilots becoming so brain washed that they cannot think for themselves - what a sorry state of affairs? The only person that decides on a final fuel figure is the Captain!

To continue the above, in 99% of the flights, the amount calculated by the computer should suffice. However, since I am a thinking captain, I do not always trust the computers and under certain circumstances I will take more.

But I will NOT take more just to be safe, I will not take 200/300KGs because it is supposed to be the right thing to do. In my company I see more people not thinking for themselves and taking a ton of extra fuel "just to be sure" then people taking minimum fuel but having thought about it.

[kick the tires]

Not very good at these urls....

http://http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/airline-probed-over-low-fuel-emergency-landings/story-fn32891l-1226450741826?sv=12c5e403cf3d58cdcc10b507c4a80e15

[BOAC]

I guess we will never separate fact from fiction here, but post #25 intrigues me. It SUGGESTS that one of the FR a/c actually made an approach at LEMD and went round, which adds a little missing flavour to the FR press release.

Regarding 'diverting early' (which is my favourite) - eg from the hold - it offers many advantages, including far more fuel to play with for holding at the alternate and an un-rushed, 'measured' diversion (plus if you play it right, you get to be first in and first on the bowser.)

[fireflybob]

Regarding 'diverting early' (which is my favourite) - eg from the hold - it offers many advantages, including far more fuel to play with for holding at the alternate and an un-rushed, 'measured' diversion (plus if you play it right, you get to be first in and first on the bowser.)

BOAC, as always the voice of experience - thanks!

[riverrock83]

Originally Posted by kick the tires

Not very good at these urls....

http://http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/airline-probed-over-low-fuel-emergency-landings/story-fn32891l-1226450741826?sv=12c5e403cf3d58cdcc10b507c4a80e15

The Beeb version:
BBC News - Ryanair emergency landings 'followed procedure'

Ryanair's minimalist press release (although its more than they often do!):
Madrid Diversions To Valencia 26 July

[the_stranger]

stranger,

taking only minimum in diversion-high-likely scenarios is unsafe!

So some have said allready, but why? What makes it unsafe? It does make it not very commercially sound, nor will it please my wife if it means coming home later, but unsafe?

The ace-card mayday only helps and protects you because still in todays high competition environment a lot of other operators and skippers do not take minimum, therefore have the ability to let you in before.

I have never used that card (except for a engine fire on ground). I have however, on a flight with CAVOK forecasts for both my destination, as well as two alternates, decided, when some seafog rolled in more or less closing my destination to divert some minutes before I reached my altn fuel plus 30 minutes, so I arrived at my alternate with some minutes above those 30 minutes in case of unforseen circumstances at that airport.

Now tell me, how unsafe was I?

Now lets say I knew about the fog and again I left with the same amount of fuel (minimum) and at the same point I diverted to the same CAVOK (inland) alternate, landing with 30+ minutes in tanks.
How is that unsafe(r)?
(again, since a lot of people fail to keep those apart, it would not be smart, since diverting costs more then some extra fuel, but smart is not the issue here).

It is an airmanship and gentleman thing for me. We are all out there together, so we should all behave sensible, as in such situations, the behaviour of one crew influences the situation for another crew. This is of course nothing to be put into rules, as it is far more complex and greyish for simple paragraphs.

Again, safe and smart are mixed together. Is it smart in some circumstances? Yes! Is it unsafe if you do not? No, not always.

If now one airline makes good experience with a defacto minimum fuel policy, it doesn't mean it is safe. It just means there is (luckily) enough slack in the system that it does not immediately collapse. To abuse this fact for the own economical benefit is in my opinion disgraceful and irresponsible.

How would diverting a little more than other airlines be abuse? It just means more cost for the airline and more income for other airports.

It is the same kind of behaviour that led to the financial crisis. Everyone just optimising his own little garden without considering the bigger picture. We would all agree that the banksters are not a good model for ethics and professionalism. So we should avoid acting like them.

I fail to see the way they are the same.

To be clear, I do NOT condone the use of a mayday/panpan/priority as a standard to safe fuel. I make sure I ALWAYS land with 30 minutes of fuel left (or more), regardless if I divert or not.

That makes it safe, not taking extra fuel.

Fuel is not a substitute for brains, nor safety. Fuel is a substitute for time. It gives you more time to decide, but so do earlier decisions.
My company wants me to flight with a little fuel as possible, within the margins of safety. That last part is up to me and to me, that does not always equal taking more fuel, but it does come down to making sure I land, wherever, with 30+ minutes of fuel left.

[galacticosh]

the stranger.

Fog and indeed TS can occur unexpectedly. You deal with it just like you've said.
The point is setting off to an area of known Fog or TS (in my opinion similar as they stand a good chance of improving within 30min) on min fuel is fool hardy. Especially like in this case to a busy Hub.
Fuel gives you time to gather information and make the safest and most commercially viable decision. It also gives you flexibility to change your decisions before you end up going deeper into your tunnel vision. Any pilot who has experienced options blinking out around them due to changing circumstances knows the value of this.
Putting yourself knowingly into a stress inducing scenario before even getting airborne is something that should be left to fighter jocks.

[FRying]

From the start, MAD is an airfield that requires +20 minutes in itself

[the_stranger]

As a big company, making several hundred thousand flights a year, it will be hard to always arrive at alternate and land with >30 min of fuel left, if the whole company only tanks minimum. Situations in aviation are too divers to judge from your own experience to the overall system level.

Example: if all the operators into FRA fuel minimum, and all have the same closest alternate filed, imagine what happens at this low capacity alternate when the whole wave has to divert on minimum?

And still all the European flights are planned with the minimum amount and judging by the (lack of) ASR's, very few flights land with less than 30 minutes. And with very few, I mean not a handful on 100.000+ flights a year.
But to be honest, and I forgot this point, we do, if the price is right, tank the amount neede fot the way back (if flying to a "expensive" airport. But that would leave us with minimum again for the way back.


And I do fly to FRA regularly, and in 90% of the time with minimum fuel, taxiiing in with altn+30 minutes left. And again, I don't see a problem in that, providing you keep up te date with the circumstances around you.
Half an hour before landing we check the weather. Is it iffy? Check more than one airport around you. Depending on the distance the planned alternate does not have to be the best option on that day. Make a calculation for each suitable airport, and there are always more then one in my part of the world, when you want to divert to that airport to arrive with at least 30 minutes of fuel. Do you hear a lot opf diversions to that airport? Plan for a earlier leave of the holding...

Would I know only one other airport would be suitable and therefore very busy, then offcourse I would take more, but going from my homebase to FRA gives me a suitable alternate every 25 miles, giving me an option every 25/GS minutes.

Would FRA completely close during my approach after having flown not a shortcut or such, having burned exactly the flightplan fuel plus the cont fuel of at least 5 minutes and my altnernate would also have unforseen delays, then I agree I am getting close to the limit, but to be honest, that's such a small chance it is not weighing up to taking 200KGs or more on every single flight. And flying in this busy space for 10 yeasr hasn't given me one moment where I was out op options and had to land with less then 30 minutes.
Might have been lucky and past results are never assurances for the future, but taking more/too much fuel does not make for a safer flight (but it does make it easier).

the stranger.

Fog and indeed TS can occur unexpectedly. You deal with it just like you've said.
The point is setting off to an area of known Fog or TS (in my opinion similar as they stand a good chance of improving within 30min) on min fuel is fool hardy. Especially like in this case to a busy Hub.
Fuel gives you time to gather information and make the safest and most commercially viable decision. It also gives you flexibility to change your decisions before you end up going deeper into your tunnel vision. Any pilot who has experienced options blinking out around them due to changing circumstances knows the value of this.
Putting yourself knowingly into a stress inducing scenario before even getting airborne is something that should be left to fighter jocks.

I don't know what other people do, but when knowing the destination is not great weatherwise, I start making plans early during the flight, of not before the flight. That does not create stress, it is part of my normal job. I do not wait until I pratically see the airport

Our flights range typically from an hour to an hour and a half. With ACARS, I can be updated on weather from the moment I get airborne for all airports within reach. With VHF and ACARS I can talk to handling on destination to get an idea if there are a lot of diversions, holdings etc.
Within 10 minutes after the after t/o checklist I can have an altered plan, selected my actual alternate (which might be different than on the flightplan, reducing the required fuel) and have a good idea of the traffic there (ATC does help you know in giving info on how many have diverted to that field). Still got at least 30 minutes left before we start an approach. Time enough to adjust the plan if needed.
And this way of planning would be the same if I had minimum fuel or 1 hour extra. I always know when to divert to land with 30 minutes left and that moment is almost always (far) earlier the moment where I am left with altn+final reserve.

I am talking about a situation where only the destination is difficult, weather or traffic wise, giving me options all around me and the destination. Things chance, as would the amount of fuel in my tanks, if the trouble is allready at more than one location.

But the way I have been working, as have most of my colleagues has not given one low fuel emergency for the last 4 years, nor do we divert a lot. But we do save a lot of fuel and save more every year by looking professionally at our required fuel instead of just taking extra.

[captplaystation]

I am constantly amazed by those that are comfortable arriving anywhere with 30min till double flameout . . . . because that in plain language is what we are talking about.

How often in a Simulator has some emergency been given where time has seemingly gone onto fast-forward & whoops, coffee-break time/ end of session as 30 min has just vanished.

Missed approaches with 900-1100kg in the tanks are just a little out of my comfort zone. I seem to remember a few years ago in a Ryanair manual a paragraph stating that no flight would be planned to arrive at destination OR alternate with less than 2000kg remaining, but I guess they removed that particular advice, or no way could you hold till 2000kg & then subsequently plan to arr at alt with a ton or so.
Legal as it may be,personally I get a little uncomfortable being airborne with much less than a ton a side, & have some justifiable doubts over the actual burn that is forecast to alternates, particularly if you are not the only one & will not be declaring an emergncy to have priority. Certainly most diversions I have undertaken have mysteriously used a chunk more than the meagre amount forecast.

Those that routinely take minimum fuel (or anything close to it) on a dodgy day are (IMHO) being somewhat optimistic/unimaginative.

If you imagine a scenario where on a busy night you quite possibly given less than optimum inbound route/early descent, & your subsequent diversion is more than likely accompanied by several others in the same boat, are you going to truly feel comfortable hoofing off to somewhere else that has been calculated at the minimum possible burn, to arr with 30 min holding till silence in a best case scenario ? ? If you are, congrats on your supreme self confidence, & on the confidence you display in both lady luck & the bods/computer responsible for your flight planning programme.

I am not "blessed"(?) with either of these attributes so use the old fashioned method that has kept me out of trouble this last 23 years - EXTRA FUEL.

An awareness of ones own vulnerability used to be seen as an attribute in aviation, the Beanies have not yet brainwashed it out of my generation, although I do occasionaly see contemporaries who delight in calculating all the variables possible to depart with less than block fuel on the log when there is patently no need & a few centimes of benefit. I can only assume they have been lucky enough in their career to have never been exposed to a situation where the value of it is self.evident. . . . or they have had their imagination disconnected.

Whilst I agree in the most basic sense with the stranger that it is not per se dangerous to depart with minimum fuel into forecast poor weather, the extra stress/time constraints you place on yourself /other aircraft/ ATC may lead to circumstances where it will rapidly become so.

For further evidence of this read the report of the Brittania Airways B757 landing accident @ Girona & tell me it would have ended the same way if they had taken an extra 30-45 min in the tanks, me, I somehow doubt it.

[BOAC]

I seems to me that several here have forgotten how div fuel is calculated. Yes, going around at minima to divert is uncomfortable. A 'normal' diversion is not. However, you need to ask yourself WHY you commenced that approach in the first place.

Read how the-stranger handles it?

Originally Posted by cps

Missed approaches with 900-1100kg in the tanks are just a little out of my comfort zone.

- mine too. How on earth do you find yourself anywhere near that? Are you flying a Citation? That is typically final reserve for a 737NG - and you STILL have 30 minutes. See above?

[FRying]

The RYR guys did not divert from minima. Yet they found themselves with 30 minutes at touchdown because you simply don't fly a straight line from diversion point to threshold. Again, no go around allowed at alternate. Plus, you don't always have the chance to divert from a point 200 miles ahead of your destination. Many times it will occur after a 20 minutes holding and once everybody has already started rushing to the alternate.

Anyway, we can discuss all that for weeks, the bottom line is captains and first officers should never feel pressure to bring less than what they feel comfortable with. For some it will be 100 kilos, for other it may be 700. We're not all made equal in the face of stress and pressure. The 700 guy may not be the black sheep. He's only different and is aware of his own lower limits.

Now, past 1000 kilos as a standard magic number is way out normality to me !

[captplaystation]

BOAC, I was referring to a potential missed approach at the alternate (perhaps due to tech prob or whatever.

I am long gone from destination WAY before that

[Stan Woolley]

You will never change the mind of an individual by arguing fuel policy on a forum.

You just have to watch a sim detail go to hell when a fuel situation starts developing, even really good operators can quickly start running out of capacity. The Britannia at Gro is a good example imo Captplaystation.

Many moons ago my mate was a Fo tasked with ferrying a 767 into Gatwick with a Management Captain who proceeded to reduce the amount of fuel my pal suggested (sensible) and they set off with minimum (bare) . Not surprisingly they were asked to hold on the arrival (weather fine) and promptly diverted to Ltn !

I'm with Studi and Captplaystation and all the other 'cowards'.

[the_stranger]

The RYR guys did not divert from minima. Yet they found themselves with 30 minutes at touchdown because you simply don't fly a straight line from diversion point to threshold.

On our flightplans, diversion fuel is calculated via a SID/STAR, never a straight line. Also (most of the time) three other options are given, calculate by the same way and indicated as how much fuel we would need extra/less compared to the planned altn.
A straight line is not required to keep me within my diversion fuel.

Again, no go around allowed at alternate.

And if I would expect one, I would plan for it. Ofcourse you never know, but how many unlikely variables do you take into account?
Even if you take 2 hours extra, there are always some scenarios to be imagined where you run out.
For me, the chance for doing an approach while running close to diversion fuel plus 30 minutes, going around, using more then the planned div. fuel and going around at the altn are so small I more or less disregard it. unless you can expect a go-around/linger routing.
But then you plan for it.
And in the end, those 30 minutes are meant for extreme unlikely things..

Plus, you don't always have the chance to divert from a point 200 miles ahead of your destination. Many times it will occur after a 20 minutes holding and once everybody has already started rushing to the alternate.

Since when do others decide for you when to divert. If, at 400' after T/O, I want to divert, I divert. I ALWAYS have the chance to divert, be it 200 miles before destination or after a go-around. Having limited options where to divert to, that's another story, but again, you plan for that.

Anyway, we can discuss all that for weeks, the bottom line is captains and first officers should never feel pressure to bring less than what they feel comfortable with. For some it will be 100 kilos, for other it may be 700. We're not all made equal in the face of stress and pressure. The 700 guy may not be the black sheep. He's only different and is aware of his own lower limits.

Now, past 1000 kilos as a standard magic number is way out normality to me !

You are totally right there and I am not advocating my way of working as being better. There is the law and your personal margin. That last part is totally up to you and you should feel comfortable (including the rest of the crew).

It certainly has nothing to do with guts, cowards or how far are you daring to go. It is a personal thing to decide how much you want above the calculated, and therefor legal minimum.

But saying more fuel equals more safety is mindlessly repeating eachother

[Pilot_OLF]

gues their fuel cards were out of limits and declined

[antiskid marks]

It's a personal choice, but how come Ryanair has 4 aircrafts doing the same thing when others don't seem to....!
I guess it might be a personal choice or whatsoever but if everybody has the same proportion of aircraft diverting in a mayday the system collapses. All the "our flightplan include SID/STAR stuff"...first it's the law which respecting seems like an absolute minimum, second it's for everybody the same.
It might be safe to fly minimum but sometimes it's just ridiculously stupid...TAFs and METARs are one thing, SID/STAR etc are the theory so what happens in those situations?ATC has to take you, first through CBs and use different routings as there is probably a lot more of a workload on them due everybody encountering issues (offtrack aircrafts, more aircraft piling up in the sector, reduced capacity and use of unusual holds). It's a really busy airport, do you really expect to get your standard SID/STAR trackmiles at optimum speed, anti-ice consumption etc...? You don't know what's gonna be the WX enroute to your alternate, central spain is a huge overheated high altitude plateau, conditions for TS creation if they prevail in MAD, they probably also prevail in its mid-range vincinity due similar landscape, terrain, sun exposure etc...MAD is south west corner of Europe, depending of the inbound traffic flow, it might be more crowded in the North sectors for last european medium haul coming in. If you hold north west of the airfield or south east it's not really the same story to go to VLC. Although there are the minimum legal requirements, if you have to go through all the traffic in diagonal, you're a lot more likely to suffer extra track miles to avoid traffic etc. Who's at low altitude between south east holds at MAD and VLC: nobody. Who's at low altitude between north west holds at MAD and VLC, all the traffic.
Then thinking you can still use the mayday joker card is just wrong and to me a lot of disrespect to others...you just put everybody in a more difficult situation with guys waiting for their turn in the hold being delayed due to your priority etc, increased EATs at last minute etc...it would be a disgrace.
Sea fog is a difficult thing to predict, it can happen really quickly with very specific conditions needing to match in very specific circumstances...TS in an evening summer in central spain doesn't seem to me that unusual.
But for all this, you need to gather experience, listen to experienced captains, and not just take the answer databases of the ATPL but understand the books etc...
If we just stick to the minimum fuel and listen 100% to the company orders then we are not much more than bus drivers...it's not a default of their pilots I guess. It just questions the real freedom you have regarding your fuel uplifts and consequences.
Finally, some airlines invest in controlling their operation. According to what I've read on the case, it seems two of those planes were really close to each other. The operations department could find a mean to communicate with their aircraft giving a heads up on what's going on with company aircraft. It's a mess just spreading the information might be a valuable input!