4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time
I really don't know why I am getting involved in this discussion, but I will. For those of you who have been involved in pprune for some years; I will apologise in advance for I have said most of this before.
I flew DC-10s for Fred Laker. Laker, from an operating crew point of view, was a pretty efficient operator. We always, as a matter of course, carried an extra hour of fuel contingency for New York and Chicago. Those of you who know anything about carrying extra fuel will already know that you will burn 10% of the weight of the extra fuel just getting it to the destination.
So, when JFK went out in severe thunderstorms (such as MAD), it was not unknown to go round in circles at Micke intersection with lots of other fellow travellers burning fuel like there was no tomorrow and then end up diverting to Bradley or Boston.
After Laker went down the tube, I went to work for a Part 121 operator at JFK flying ex-Laker DC-10s on the N-register.
They had a minimum (plog) fuel policy which worried me a little.
So, I found myself in an ex-Laker DC-10 but now under Part 121 arriving at Micke intersection with not a lot of extra fuel but the decision was amazingly simple from a captain's point of view.
As soon as the fuel got to Bradley or Boston minimums, then off you went
and there were absolutely NO GREY AREAS.
I really cannot see the problem with aircraft arriving at VLC on diversion from MAD announcing a "Mayday" on the basis of low-fuel. I would have to go into my attic to dig out the old regulations (CAA and FAA) but I have to say that any aircraft that is likely to land with less than the minimum emergency hold fuel, is absolutely required to declare a Mayday.
(In approximate terms, emergency hold fuel (15-30 minutes) is to cover the situation where you have arrived at your diversion airfield, made an approach and then had to go-around because the runway was blocked and then make a circuit to land with dry tanks.
Have things changed?
I flew DC-10s for Fred Laker. Laker, from an operating crew point of view, was a pretty efficient operator. We always, as a matter of course, carried an extra hour of fuel contingency for New York and Chicago. Those of you who know anything about carrying extra fuel will already know that you will burn 10% of the weight of the extra fuel just getting it to the destination.
So, when JFK went out in severe thunderstorms (such as MAD), it was not unknown to go round in circles at Micke intersection with lots of other fellow travellers burning fuel like there was no tomorrow and then end up diverting to Bradley or Boston.
After Laker went down the tube, I went to work for a Part 121 operator at JFK flying ex-Laker DC-10s on the N-register.
They had a minimum (plog) fuel policy which worried me a little.
So, I found myself in an ex-Laker DC-10 but now under Part 121 arriving at Micke intersection with not a lot of extra fuel but the decision was amazingly simple from a captain's point of view.
As soon as the fuel got to Bradley or Boston minimums, then off you went
and there were absolutely NO GREY AREAS.
I really cannot see the problem with aircraft arriving at VLC on diversion from MAD announcing a "Mayday" on the basis of low-fuel. I would have to go into my attic to dig out the old regulations (CAA and FAA) but I have to say that any aircraft that is likely to land with less than the minimum emergency hold fuel, is absolutely required to declare a Mayday.
(In approximate terms, emergency hold fuel (15-30 minutes) is to cover the situation where you have arrived at your diversion airfield, made an approach and then had to go-around because the runway was blocked and then make a circuit to land with dry tanks.
Have things changed?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by me
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.
Originally Posted by FRying
The RYR guys did not divert from minima.
How many 'whoopsies' are you guys going to plan for? A G/A at alternate??? Holding for 50 mins at alternate? These things are just NOT part of normal fuel planning. They are what PAN and MAYDAY are for. Are you going to plan for the Boeing 'Gear Lever jammed' or Gear will not extend manually' checklist from the Classic days as well? 3800kg minimum I recall to run the checklist.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just who said these captains did not take extra fuel? This whole thread is based on the assumption that these aircraft departed with minimum fuel but nobody can say if this is the case.
Second a mayday for fuel is declared when the expected touchdown fuel remaining is less than final reserve. Given that Spanish ATC are a disgrace to the profession and getting accurate information is next to impossible, is it any wonder that maydays were declared. If you can't accurately predict when you can touchdown you have no option but to declare an emergency. I believe all Ryanair aircraft touched down with above final reserve.
Third, min fuel. I have been carrying min fuel for at least the last 5 years. Never had an issue. I normally land with between 2.8 and 3.0 tonnes. I do note that if I deem extra fuel needed I tend to take a little more extra fuel than many of my collegues. For those of you that are saying taking off with min fuel is unsafe, what of the situation ( a situation I have had a least 3 times this summer) where with passenger and min fuel load I was up to my MTOW. Was this flight unsafe? Should I have tech stopped on the way so I had a little extra just in case when I reached my destination. It is complete nonsense to say that min fuel is dangerous.
Fourth, The Ryanair fuel league is statistical nonsense, the letters you recieve are standard letters telling you well done or could do better. I have had many of both in my time, all end up straight in the bin never to be thought of again. I cannot see why any professional pilot would give a second thought to these letters, they are a creation of non pilot management and have no meaning in the flying world, if these guys want their delusions let them think these letters are changing the way we do business. By the way base captains been ordered by the chief pilot to issue letters to the top/bottom 20% of pilots within the company, company not base! You can see immediately how it is statistical nonsense.
Fifth and last, When it comes to fuel carriage FR are more generous than many of the larger operators out there. Anyone from Easy care to comment? What do you normally arrive with?
Second a mayday for fuel is declared when the expected touchdown fuel remaining is less than final reserve. Given that Spanish ATC are a disgrace to the profession and getting accurate information is next to impossible, is it any wonder that maydays were declared. If you can't accurately predict when you can touchdown you have no option but to declare an emergency. I believe all Ryanair aircraft touched down with above final reserve.
Third, min fuel. I have been carrying min fuel for at least the last 5 years. Never had an issue. I normally land with between 2.8 and 3.0 tonnes. I do note that if I deem extra fuel needed I tend to take a little more extra fuel than many of my collegues. For those of you that are saying taking off with min fuel is unsafe, what of the situation ( a situation I have had a least 3 times this summer) where with passenger and min fuel load I was up to my MTOW. Was this flight unsafe? Should I have tech stopped on the way so I had a little extra just in case when I reached my destination. It is complete nonsense to say that min fuel is dangerous.
Fourth, The Ryanair fuel league is statistical nonsense, the letters you recieve are standard letters telling you well done or could do better. I have had many of both in my time, all end up straight in the bin never to be thought of again. I cannot see why any professional pilot would give a second thought to these letters, they are a creation of non pilot management and have no meaning in the flying world, if these guys want their delusions let them think these letters are changing the way we do business. By the way base captains been ordered by the chief pilot to issue letters to the top/bottom 20% of pilots within the company, company not base! You can see immediately how it is statistical nonsense.
Fifth and last, When it comes to fuel carriage FR are more generous than many of the larger operators out there. Anyone from Easy care to comment? What do you normally arrive with?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beernice is right we don't know if these captains uplifted extra fuel...
Now, taking extra fuel to burn it in the hold might be one option according to preferred company policy...some companies really want to bring their pax to destination. But burning it to absolute minimum diversion fuel before you go is questionable. If one says that spanish ATC is a non-sense, then you know you just plan to divert a bit before you reach your bingo fuel (if you know that spanish ATC is not helpful, then take it into account, it should be reflected in your fuel management). It's an element which is part of the decision process. Except very exceptional circumstances you should not have to declare a mayday because there were TS at MAD...where is the really unusual situation in this??? Mayday is to be used when you have really bad luck.
Then commenting in saying that they probably landed with more and than final reserve fuel is just ridiculous and if they were so large then why did they declare a mayday!!! And of course once you get priority you'll burn less than you would have if you'd be standing in the queue!
Anyway, I think one can leave with minimum fuel and be perfectly safe if all the aspects have been taken into account. But many of them ending up using Mayday because there were TS in MAD...to me, it's just not a good inflight fuel management, having left with minimum fuel or not....! It's what you do with the fuel you have that matters.
Now, taking extra fuel to burn it in the hold might be one option according to preferred company policy...some companies really want to bring their pax to destination. But burning it to absolute minimum diversion fuel before you go is questionable. If one says that spanish ATC is a non-sense, then you know you just plan to divert a bit before you reach your bingo fuel (if you know that spanish ATC is not helpful, then take it into account, it should be reflected in your fuel management). It's an element which is part of the decision process. Except very exceptional circumstances you should not have to declare a mayday because there were TS at MAD...where is the really unusual situation in this??? Mayday is to be used when you have really bad luck.
Then commenting in saying that they probably landed with more and than final reserve fuel is just ridiculous and if they were so large then why did they declare a mayday!!! And of course once you get priority you'll burn less than you would have if you'd be standing in the queue!
Anyway, I think one can leave with minimum fuel and be perfectly safe if all the aspects have been taken into account. But many of them ending up using Mayday because there were TS in MAD...to me, it's just not a good inflight fuel management, having left with minimum fuel or not....! It's what you do with the fuel you have that matters.
I was actually thinking about responding to Studi and then I remebered that there was absolutely no point.
He preceeded the Wright Brothers by four good years.
He preceeded the Wright Brothers by four good years.
Last edited by JW411; 15th Aug 2012 at 19:45.
A little background info here
Three Ryanair mayday calls go out on same day - National News - Independent.ie
Well done to those concerned for getting down safely.
Although the circumstances & outcome were very different, this one is always worth a look to make sure nothing similar ever happens again..
1956 Hawker Hunter multiple aircraft accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well done to those concerned for getting down safely.
Although the circumstances & outcome were very different, this one is always worth a look to make sure nothing similar ever happens again..
1956 Hawker Hunter multiple aircraft accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by hum; 15th Aug 2012 at 20:55.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beernice, if (as I remember) you fly for Ryan & carry min fuel, I applaud your ability to consistently land with 2.8 - 3.0 tons.
Many of the routes I plied for Mikey had 900kg or so Div fuel (a tad optimistic) so, with final reserve 1100 (if I remember) & a longish taxi on departure, even applying my best CDA I would arrive (having taken the "discretionary" 300 extra) with around 2400-2500 more often than not.
Actually, NO edited to say, it was fairly route sensitive, & in both GRO & CRL was about 50/50 , dependent on route, between 28-3000 & 24-2500, but, that was with the 300 extra.
Given a "real" diversion fuel of around 1500kg in most cases, that equated to a possible PAN en-route to said alternate.
Anyhow, we are discussing Apples & Oranges, & Spain , in Summer, with TS forecast, & "not overly flexible" (read militant, but Hey , do the Govt even notice? ) ATC, is not the place to Dick around with min fuel. . . and I seriously doubt that these guys did. I am 2nd guessing that all the Ducks lined up, and that the Spanish media is possibly labouring a point here with some Govt sponsored political motive behind it.
Hopefully they all departed with a bit more extra than their Base Capt would have liked, if they did
, if not 
they should really be asking themselves WHY ? ?
I would be a little bit ashamed (but not inhibited ) to be forced into declaring an Emergency due fuel, unless I had been thrown a real wide ball.
Unless due to some really unforseen circumstances, I would take that as a surefire indication that my eye was not on the ball that day.
Many of the routes I plied for Mikey had 900kg or so Div fuel (a tad optimistic) so, with final reserve 1100 (if I remember) & a longish taxi on departure, even applying my best CDA I would arrive (having taken the "discretionary" 300 extra) with around 2400-2500 more often than not.
Actually, NO edited to say, it was fairly route sensitive, & in both GRO & CRL was about 50/50 , dependent on route, between 28-3000 & 24-2500, but, that was with the 300 extra.
Given a "real" diversion fuel of around 1500kg in most cases, that equated to a possible PAN en-route to said alternate.
Anyhow, we are discussing Apples & Oranges, & Spain , in Summer, with TS forecast, & "not overly flexible" (read militant, but Hey , do the Govt even notice? ) ATC, is not the place to Dick around with min fuel. . . and I seriously doubt that these guys did. I am 2nd guessing that all the Ducks lined up, and that the Spanish media is possibly labouring a point here with some Govt sponsored political motive behind it.
Hopefully they all departed with a bit more extra than their Base Capt would have liked, if they did
, if not they should really be asking themselves WHY ? ? I would be a little bit ashamed (but not inhibited ) to be forced into declaring an Emergency due fuel, unless I had been thrown a real wide ball.
Unless due to some really unforseen circumstances, I would take that as a surefire indication that my eye was not on the ball that day.
Last edited by captplaystation; 15th Aug 2012 at 20:55.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, poimier. The reference to 'ICAO' was to make sure US and Canadian pilots do not expect any effective response away from home to their call as I believe some do. It is viewed as 'conversational' in ICAO.and normally met (in the UK, anyway) with "Are you declaring an emergency?"
What is the actual required ATC action in the US and Canada to such a call?
What is the actual required ATC action in the US and Canada to such a call?
Last edited by BOAC; 16th Aug 2012 at 06:48.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning BOAC,
Well, I don't know the answer to that, but I fully recognise your point - not all pilots are aware that different countries have different ways of doing things … even if they speak the same language.
As I said, I like the “Minimum fuel” call as Mayday means, to me, imminent distress, whereas the other one doesn’t. Which is excatly why the ATCO wants to know.
But to revert to the original point, it is a very bad policy for beancounters to decide minimum fuel - way before the crew signs in.
Well, I don't know the answer to that, but I fully recognise your point - not all pilots are aware that different countries have different ways of doing things … even if they speak the same language.
As I said, I like the “Minimum fuel” call as Mayday means, to me, imminent distress, whereas the other one doesn’t. Which is excatly why the ATCO wants to know.
But to revert to the original point, it is a very bad policy for beancounters to decide minimum fuel - way before the crew signs in.
Last edited by Poimier; 16th Aug 2012 at 07:11.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We agree completely, I'm sure, but regarding 'minimum fuel' - it has ALWAYS been decided for the crew for as long as pilots have been flight planning, and not by 'bean-counters'. In civil life it is the 'fuel required' figure on the PLOG. As stressed many times above, of course the PIC can increase that.
I once experienced a PIC who wanted to reduce it, but was dissuaded by it being pointed out he would need a new F/O.................
I once experienced a PIC who wanted to reduce it, but was dissuaded by it being pointed out he would need a new F/O.................
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: CarrotLand
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
From FlightRadar 24 i can see RYR5996 waiting around 10/15 min East of MAD, approach an then divert to ALC
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...it is a very bad policy for beancounters to decide minimum fuel - way before the crew signs in.
What I actually do on the day all depends... That's what I'm paid for. But let's make no mistake. We as a crew make our own decisions, not the company.
And while we are here - over the last couple of years (500 flights/year) I've only ever flown with 'extra' fuel on a handful of flights. The vast majority of flights I depart with what might be described as "Minimum Fuel" and have only once felt anxious. That was not because it was unsafe but because I felt we might have to divert and would not get our passengers to where they wanted to be.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair & Eavan Cullen on RTE radio news this lunchtime discussing these events. Should be available to podcast from RTÉ - News at One Podcast
shortly.
shortly.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the threads here you'll find lots of pilots who dream of flying KC-10's or KC-135's, tanker planes!
For all the others on commercial aviation minimum fuel is the rule, and it will always be, unless the oil price drops significantly, which I don't thing it will. So stop moaning about it and go do your job.
Whenever I deemed necessary I take extra fuel, yes. My employer asks me to justify it in the Voyage Report and one line writing does the job, and that's it!
I also find some pilots flying high speed, out of the optimum flight level, using speed brakes unnecessarily and then complaining that the fuel is close to minimus for alternate! A bit of airmanship sometimes helps...
For all the others on commercial aviation minimum fuel is the rule, and it will always be, unless the oil price drops significantly, which I don't thing it will. So stop moaning about it and go do your job.
Whenever I deemed necessary I take extra fuel, yes. My employer asks me to justify it in the Voyage Report and one line writing does the job, and that's it!
I also find some pilots flying high speed, out of the optimum flight level, using speed brakes unnecessarily and then complaining that the fuel is close to minimus for alternate! A bit of airmanship sometimes helps...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: toulouse
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
non event
is flying with minimum fuel dangerous?
if yes, so regulation is dangerous
so is it dangerous to make an approach to minimuns?
do we need to had 100ft on our minimuns CAT 1
Don't get me wrong, if there CB, TS even on prob 30 tempo, I take extra fuel. So 20 min extra give you normally the opportunity that the cell will move out of the approach path...still then no guaranty.
MAD is mad, a big mess of inefficient airport and controller, unable of efficienty in cavok days so in that case no surprise...let s get out of here
is flying with minimum fuel dangerous?
if yes, so regulation is dangerous
so is it dangerous to make an approach to minimuns?
do we need to had 100ft on our minimuns CAT 1
Don't get me wrong, if there CB, TS even on prob 30 tempo, I take extra fuel. So 20 min extra give you normally the opportunity that the cell will move out of the approach path...still then no guaranty.
MAD is mad, a big mess of inefficient airport and controller, unable of efficienty in cavok days so in that case no surprise...let s get out of here
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In t'sky
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just listened to that radio interview, I am slightly disappointed that it turned into a sabre rattling exercise. Whilst IALPA is right to point out that perhaps crews at Ryanair are under pressure, insinuating that planes are falling out of the sky because of Ryanair management decisions is garbage.
We are instructed, on non tankering sectors, that we can take PLOG +300kgs without explanation. Anything more has to be justified - in the cases of WX I have NEVER been asked to explain my extra fuel decisions.
If Steve McNamara is correct in his assertion that aircraft diverted, and then held for an hour in Valencia, and THEN had to call it in, I have sympathy for those pilots. How much are pilots expected to carry in these situations? 60 minutes? 90 minutes? Where is the line?
If Captains are being 'bullied' and 'cowed' into submission with their fuel decisions, then they need to grow some balls and stand up for the real time decisions they made on the line. If your not a smoking hole in the ground then that to me says you made a good decision.
We are instructed, on non tankering sectors, that we can take PLOG +300kgs without explanation. Anything more has to be justified - in the cases of WX I have NEVER been asked to explain my extra fuel decisions.
If Steve McNamara is correct in his assertion that aircraft diverted, and then held for an hour in Valencia, and THEN had to call it in, I have sympathy for those pilots. How much are pilots expected to carry in these situations? 60 minutes? 90 minutes? Where is the line?
If Captains are being 'bullied' and 'cowed' into submission with their fuel decisions, then they need to grow some balls and stand up for the real time decisions they made on the line. If your not a smoking hole in the ground then that to me says you made a good decision.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!
Im my 5 years with Ryanair carriage of extra fuel above PLOG was never an issue - simple one line explanation on the Voyage Report and you never heard anything else about it.
Whilst I do not personally care for the corporate culture of Ryanair it would concern me that lay persons seeing this in the media will get the impression that Ryanair are flying around without obeying the fuel rules which is patently untrue.
What I think is more significant is that Ryanair with its method of business does not make an friends so the Spanish media (and even authorities) will jump on every opportunity to tarnish their image. As they say, what goes around comes around.
Im my 5 years with Ryanair carriage of extra fuel above PLOG was never an issue - simple one line explanation on the Voyage Report and you never heard anything else about it.
Whilst I do not personally care for the corporate culture of Ryanair it would concern me that lay persons seeing this in the media will get the impression that Ryanair are flying around without obeying the fuel rules which is patently untrue.
What I think is more significant is that Ryanair with its method of business does not make an friends so the Spanish media (and even authorities) will jump on every opportunity to tarnish their image. As they say, what goes around comes around.