4 Ryanair aircraft declare fuel emergency at same time
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Driffield
Age: 73
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pax (but FSX experienced) it concerns me that less fuel=less weight=more profit. Where does safety come into it, can a Captain insist on having adequate reserves of fuel? Is there pressure in this current economic climate to cut corners? If a Captain has to declare a Mayday due to insufficient fuel, is their employer going to stand by the Captain and say they were complying with our SOPs? I doubt it, they will say Captain is solely responsible for the safety of their aircraft. I would rather pay more for my ticket and get to my destination (or near to my destination e.g. Ryanair) in one piece and I'm sure most pax would say the same. Wasn't there a fatal crash in the U.S. a few years ago due to lack of fuel, and the crew not making enough noise to atc they were running out of fuel?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crash in the U.S. a few years ago due to lack of fuel...
Had nothing to do with uploading insufficient fuel.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, way longer than "a few years ago." United DC-8 going in to Portland in the late 1960s, if memory serves.
IMHO, it must be understood, there is usually little "danger" in despatching with company fuel, or even less... there is no obligation on the crew to land at destination, or hold extensively. They can divert early, declare a Pan or Mayday (which are hardly dangerous actions in themselves), or even land en-route somewhere. Conversely, as with Portland and JFK, an aircraft can despatch with plenty of fuel, but run out due poor decisions or communications.
Declaring a Mayday for lack of fuel is not indicative of a safety problem. Landing with less than Reserves more so, but still not an issue if communicated ahead, given priority. IIRC (but may be wrong) of the 4 x RYR who declared a Mayday, 3 landed with Reserves+, and 1 a fraction below. I'd rather fly with an airline who were happy to call Mayday, if and when required, to ensure landing with Reserves than the opposite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks pretty 'kosher' to me. The only 'finding' I would query is Conclusions 3. Since they were diverting from 10-14000ft (admittedly the 'wrong side' of MAD) and not from g/a, they in fact had significantly more than min div fuel if approx 2664kg was the figure.
I cannot fault the fuel planning of the 3 a/c. I do, however, feel that a review of any required div fuel safety 'buffer' above the current requirements should be undertaken by EASA and I certainly agree that MAD need to NOTAM the increased fuel requirement for R18 - been there, done that.
I cannot fault the fuel planning of the 3 a/c. I do, however, feel that a review of any required div fuel safety 'buffer' above the current requirements should be undertaken by EASA and I certainly agree that MAD need to NOTAM the increased fuel requirement for R18 - been there, done that.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: moving around
Age: 47
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
time for AESA to look at their own airlines
with the report published into the VLC event, it would be nice that AESA take a look at the airline in Spain that frequently dispatch aircraft in unsafe manner
You get the feeling that AESA and Ana Pastor knew the contents of the report last week but then did everything they could to try and get their revenge in first.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the diversion fuel is expected to be from a defined point. If you're not actually at THAT point, then the diversion figure from flight planning is completely irrelevant.
Originally Posted by reivax
So now,let's just select, train, and check correctly the pilots and give them the freedom to think their fuel with appropriate material in quantity and quality to provide enough information.
Hey! - was that a pig just flew past my window?
Am not surprised to see the findings of the report and am pleased to see that the crews are without any blame.
The very thought of that fills me with dread!
There is a difference between doing "things right" (robotically following a set of rules) compared to doing the "right thing". (The former is management, the latter leadership).
Technically all the rules were complied with. It is necessary to have rules to establish the minimum requirements but as pilots we also need to have "original thought" to secure a safe and sensible operation. I don't blame or criticize the individuals concerned because they have, unwittingly, been programmed by the system.
If the environment you work in has become overly structured and regimented then without realising it you personally can stop looking at the world with a contrarian mindset.
If you look at the psychology of "Conformity amongst groups" you find that if you are the only one with an opposing view you become very reluctant to express that view and just "go along with the crowd". If a group of you get together with an opposing view it is much easier to get your point across and change behaviour.
I mention this aspect because Ryanair pilots have no group representation (aka a Union). This means individuals play safe and conform with the "party line". This, in my opinion, can spill over into Flight Operations. There may be no direct threat to carrying excess fuel but the culture of the Company could make you feel vulnerable if you elect to do so.
Experience also comes into this. The veterans who have flown for many decades with several (too many!) Companies in many different theatres of operation would have no hesitation in loading an extra hours holding if they feel it is necessary and would be quite happy to argue their case. Those who lack experience and have only operated with the one Company will, apart from the odd exception, feel reluctant to do so.
So the issue to me is not the legitimacy and compliance with the "rules" but having the confidence to make the correct decisions without any fear of doing so.
So now it becomes the responsability of EASA to "think" for the pilots?
There is a difference between doing "things right" (robotically following a set of rules) compared to doing the "right thing". (The former is management, the latter leadership).
Technically all the rules were complied with. It is necessary to have rules to establish the minimum requirements but as pilots we also need to have "original thought" to secure a safe and sensible operation. I don't blame or criticize the individuals concerned because they have, unwittingly, been programmed by the system.
If the environment you work in has become overly structured and regimented then without realising it you personally can stop looking at the world with a contrarian mindset.
If you look at the psychology of "Conformity amongst groups" you find that if you are the only one with an opposing view you become very reluctant to express that view and just "go along with the crowd". If a group of you get together with an opposing view it is much easier to get your point across and change behaviour.
I mention this aspect because Ryanair pilots have no group representation (aka a Union). This means individuals play safe and conform with the "party line". This, in my opinion, can spill over into Flight Operations. There may be no direct threat to carrying excess fuel but the culture of the Company could make you feel vulnerable if you elect to do so.
Experience also comes into this. The veterans who have flown for many decades with several (too many!) Companies in many different theatres of operation would have no hesitation in loading an extra hours holding if they feel it is necessary and would be quite happy to argue their case. Those who lack experience and have only operated with the one Company will, apart from the odd exception, feel reluctant to do so.
So the issue to me is not the legitimacy and compliance with the "rules" but having the confidence to make the correct decisions without any fear of doing so.
Last edited by fireflybob; 20th Sep 2012 at 13:16.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: England
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The diversion routes are published on the FP, they are direct.
It is not necessarily ALL about experience because experience will drive you towards the everything normal scenario. It is a lot about common sense and assuming the worst case scenario. How many times in the past 15 years did my fuel decision save me......once. 1hr overburn and not one second of that in a hold!! landed 300kg above final reserve.
I have experience, that told me there would likely be no problems, it was common sense told me to take a whole bunch of gas!
It is not necessarily ALL about experience because experience will drive you towards the everything normal scenario. It is a lot about common sense and assuming the worst case scenario. How many times in the past 15 years did my fuel decision save me......once. 1hr overburn and not one second of that in a hold!! landed 300kg above final reserve.
I have experience, that told me there would likely be no problems, it was common sense told me to take a whole bunch of gas!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice no one has mentioned from the report that one of the aircraft was struck by lightning and a window overheat alarm was triggered.
Madrid ATC certainly dont come out in the report with flying colors, the word panic from them springs to mind.
Madrid ATC certainly dont come out in the report with flying colors, the word panic from them springs to mind.
Last edited by Thunderbirdsix; 20th Sep 2012 at 14:01.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said I'm very loathe to be drawn into these specific cases
If we could all accept that it would be good!
Originally Posted by S-7600
I'm afraid I can't agree that the information provided necessarily exonerates the crew however. Each aircraft had a Captain in the left hand seat at all times.
Thunderbird - the strike and o/heat are not significant in this, that is why.
Victor10 - sounds as if you didn't take enough!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- quite agree, but 90% of this thread is full of criticism and vitriol about 3 Captains who according to the FSX experts here were 'frightened' to uplift extra fuel and obviously messed up, when if we accept the IAA report, they all behaved correctly, sensibly and 2 out of 3 made it with the planned minimum fuel, 1 just 'missed' by just 75kg. It reads to me that all 3 diverted with more than the 'blessed minimum' so they HAD thought about it.
If we could all accept that it would be good!
If we could all accept that it would be good!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what the IAA report demonstrates is that the need to declare an emergency (correctly identified & complied with. . . how many others not mentioned that night - wonder why ? perhaps just crossed their fingers & scraped in with less than minimum OR flew the approach to MAD & landed in the middle of a TS, isn't that rather more worrying ? ) has been used by an unscrupulous bunch of hypocritical political honchos to try & bolster their agenda. Particularly distasteful given the alleged history of the head of the agency concerned.
The Monday Morning Quarterbacks can now have a field day saying how they would have made an earlier decision etc etc. It is of course a very mobile/dynamic situation and very difficult to actually assess/determine exactly how it would have all panned out if you had been there on the night (most of us evidently weren't)
Wholly agree, in that I "like to think" (given the actual weather,volume of traffic present likely to be in the same mess as me , & the well known & documented chaos that appears to have been at least partly present in VLC /MAD ) that I may have made the Div call a little earlier, however that is supposition on my part & indeed their decision was fundamentally sound, the need to declare an emergency as much attributable to less then optimum vectoring/sequencing as being a late decision.
Whilst in broad agreement that this whole episode does not reflect too favourably on Ryanairs (or most other companies ) obsessive fuel policy, all 3 Commanders here appear to have taken ,& thought through the reasons for doing so, extra fuel. It is not stated if the failure to receive updated wx at STN had any bearing on that aircrafts fuel uplift, but, you have to say it has mainly been an exercise in mud-slinging by the snakes that pass for politicians.
Never too keen to trumpet a victory for MOL, but when his adversaries are the low-life that passes for "leaders" in most countries, I prefer to side with him & his pilots particularly as we now see that everything was indeed in order. The flights I have taken recently in Spain seem a little less well subscribed, hope that is due to a seasonal lull rather than loss of public confidence due to all this bull. I imagine he is looking at some legal action against them for putting in the public mind that there was some justification to suspend his operating licence, difficult not to wish him well in that.
The Monday Morning Quarterbacks can now have a field day saying how they would have made an earlier decision etc etc. It is of course a very mobile/dynamic situation and very difficult to actually assess/determine exactly how it would have all panned out if you had been there on the night (most of us evidently weren't)
Wholly agree, in that I "like to think" (given the actual weather,volume of traffic present likely to be in the same mess as me , & the well known & documented chaos that appears to have been at least partly present in VLC /MAD ) that I may have made the Div call a little earlier, however that is supposition on my part & indeed their decision was fundamentally sound, the need to declare an emergency as much attributable to less then optimum vectoring/sequencing as being a late decision.
Whilst in broad agreement that this whole episode does not reflect too favourably on Ryanairs (or most other companies ) obsessive fuel policy, all 3 Commanders here appear to have taken ,& thought through the reasons for doing so, extra fuel. It is not stated if the failure to receive updated wx at STN had any bearing on that aircrafts fuel uplift, but, you have to say it has mainly been an exercise in mud-slinging by the snakes that pass for politicians.
Never too keen to trumpet a victory for MOL, but when his adversaries are the low-life that passes for "leaders" in most countries, I prefer to side with him & his pilots particularly as we now see that everything was indeed in order. The flights I have taken recently in Spain seem a little less well subscribed, hope that is due to a seasonal lull rather than loss of public confidence due to all this bull. I imagine he is looking at some legal action against them for putting in the public mind that there was some justification to suspend his operating licence, difficult not to wish him well in that.
Last edited by captplaystation; 20th Sep 2012 at 15:00.
crispy banana:
I thank you for posting the link to the IAA investigation. I have to say that I am not in the slightest bit surprised by the results. All of us who aspire to being professional pilots will recognise that each decision made by each captain was well thought-out and will find their decisions difficult to criticise. They all did a good job. They all landed at their alternates in one piece with no injuries to report. One of them was 75 kgs short of fuel.
I am sure that he will buck-up and get it exactly right next time!
As a retired old fart, I will tell you a story that I have probably already told you before but it DOES bear repetition.
I was based at JFK flying DC-10s. We went through a summer month during which I got struck by lightning eight times in the vicinity of Long Island.
One day, a Pan American 747 made a go-around in front of me and asked for a diversion to EWR (Newark). Next morning there was a huge story on the TV and in the papers about a Pan Am 747 running out of fuel as it taxied in at EWR. It only had two engines left running when it got on the gate.
Two days later, I was doing a PIC upgrade on the DC-10 with the local Fed on the jumpseat from JFK. We had a good day out and ended up in the pub. The FAA guy told me that he was most interested in the fact that our computer flight plan showed EWR as an alternate but gave the distance as 150 nms.
I pointed out that we had programmed our computer to NEVER accept the distance to an alternate to be less than 150 nms.
He then (after another couple of beers) told me that Pan Am were working on EWR as being 27 nms from JFK. That is why they almost ended up in the Hudson River. It is simply not possible to get a 747 from JFK to EWR in 27 nms.
Those of you who are as old as I am now will surely agree that Pan Am were the very first low cost airline?
I don't think so.
Of course, the youngsters on Pprune will be asking; who the hell were Pan Am? They might equally be asking who the hell were BOAC and BEA?
I thank you for posting the link to the IAA investigation. I have to say that I am not in the slightest bit surprised by the results. All of us who aspire to being professional pilots will recognise that each decision made by each captain was well thought-out and will find their decisions difficult to criticise. They all did a good job. They all landed at their alternates in one piece with no injuries to report. One of them was 75 kgs short of fuel.
I am sure that he will buck-up and get it exactly right next time!
As a retired old fart, I will tell you a story that I have probably already told you before but it DOES bear repetition.
I was based at JFK flying DC-10s. We went through a summer month during which I got struck by lightning eight times in the vicinity of Long Island.
One day, a Pan American 747 made a go-around in front of me and asked for a diversion to EWR (Newark). Next morning there was a huge story on the TV and in the papers about a Pan Am 747 running out of fuel as it taxied in at EWR. It only had two engines left running when it got on the gate.
Two days later, I was doing a PIC upgrade on the DC-10 with the local Fed on the jumpseat from JFK. We had a good day out and ended up in the pub. The FAA guy told me that he was most interested in the fact that our computer flight plan showed EWR as an alternate but gave the distance as 150 nms.
I pointed out that we had programmed our computer to NEVER accept the distance to an alternate to be less than 150 nms.
He then (after another couple of beers) told me that Pan Am were working on EWR as being 27 nms from JFK. That is why they almost ended up in the Hudson River. It is simply not possible to get a 747 from JFK to EWR in 27 nms.
Those of you who are as old as I am now will surely agree that Pan Am were the very first low cost airline?
I don't think so.
Of course, the youngsters on Pprune will be asking; who the hell were Pan Am? They might equally be asking who the hell were BOAC and BEA?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oxford
Age: 49
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IAA mentions that a LAN A340 declared mayday (and ATC confused it with one of the Ryanairs). It does not give any more details about that emergency as it's outside of its remit.
However, the aviation herald reported that it was in a much more critical situation than any of the Ryanair flights, having consumed 750 of the reserves.
The LAN also "lost" an engine. It would be good ti know if it might have been related to the critical low fuel situation.
BTW, it's good to note that the AVherald proved to have the facts right in its original report of the events of 26th July, and if anything went into more detail than the IAA report:
News: Thunderstorms in Madrid on Jul 26th 2012, landings, diversions, fuel emergencies and Ryanair
However, the aviation herald reported that it was in a much more critical situation than any of the Ryanair flights, having consumed 750 of the reserves.
The LAN also "lost" an engine. It would be good ti know if it might have been related to the critical low fuel situation.
BTW, it's good to note that the AVherald proved to have the facts right in its original report of the events of 26th July, and if anything went into more detail than the IAA report:
News: Thunderstorms in Madrid on Jul 26th 2012, landings, diversions, fuel emergencies and Ryanair
If I was the line manager (base captain) of the guy that planned 283 KG extra with prob 40 thunderstorms (according to the IAA report) into a major hub and he blamed the agent for not providing updated weather, my first question would be why did you leave without it? Sure the press and the Spanish are on a witch hunt but I think we should also consider the factors encouraging such behavior.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, agree with you 90% of the time but the USA pilots are also the final authority on final fuel load. We can upload any time we want, I have many times knowing what I was dispatched with was marginal with expected holding. We usually agree with dispatch fuel because they normally do a pretty good job but sometimes I would have had to divert if I hadn't added the extra fuel.