Dutch TV reports on 'Ryanair pilots denominated alarm over safety'
I wouldn't normally get involved in the Ryanair-bashing on this forum as I work for the orange side and probably not completely objective in matters of our main competitor. However....
None of these aircraft had even close to the amount of fuel they should have brought for MAD with TS forecast(assuming the numbers quoted here are correct). Taking 300 extra in Madrid on a good day is pushing it. If this is a company policy issue or not is not for me to say. It could be lack of good judgement on the commanders involved. Hopefully they will have learnt from it.
If FR pilots feel they will be putting their job on the line for bringing the required amount of fuel for less than standard days then yes there is a problem in FR both with the management enforcing such a policy but also with the commanders accepting it. It is the responsibility of the commander to ensure the correct amounts of fuel is uplifted and no company, FR or otherwise, will support you when you flameout on final to your alternate.
Accepting bullying on a day to day basis while hoping for the newspapers to tell your boss not to intervene with your job is probably not the correct way to exercise the privileges of your ATPL..
None of these aircraft had even close to the amount of fuel they should have brought for MAD with TS forecast(assuming the numbers quoted here are correct). Taking 300 extra in Madrid on a good day is pushing it. If this is a company policy issue or not is not for me to say. It could be lack of good judgement on the commanders involved. Hopefully they will have learnt from it.
If FR pilots feel they will be putting their job on the line for bringing the required amount of fuel for less than standard days then yes there is a problem in FR both with the management enforcing such a policy but also with the commanders accepting it. It is the responsibility of the commander to ensure the correct amounts of fuel is uplifted and no company, FR or otherwise, will support you when you flameout on final to your alternate.
Accepting bullying on a day to day basis while hoping for the newspapers to tell your boss not to intervene with your job is probably not the correct way to exercise the privileges of your ATPL..
And as 737Jock says :-
Ok here goes. Someone mentioned a KLM aircraft who, on that night, decided to divert to BCN. Just to give everyone an insight on how we at KLM handle LEMD/MAD.
KLM uses statistics over the past two years, per a/c type, per destination, per flight number, etc. to determine how much fuel is needed for a particular flight.
The system works very well. It sometimes surprises me how accurate it is.
For some destinations however, it is not enough to just apply the decision tree that is in place. One of these destinations is LEMD/MAD.
So KLM has this company instruction in place, specifically for Madrid:
CO142/12 COMPANY NOTAM
**********************
MADRID LEMD/MAD.
CONTRARY TO OM A (BOM) 8.1 - 7.2, DUE TO UNEXPECTED DELAYS DURING
ARRIVALS ON FLIGHTS TO MAD, 99% CONT FUEL COVERAGE SHALL BE
APPLIED TO KL1699, KL1701, KL1703, KL1705 AND KL1707.
CREW AND FLIGHT DISPATCH ARE URGED TO COMMUNICATE ACTIVELY DURING
FLIGHT PREPARATION AND IN-FLIGHT TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF ACTUAL
AND EXPECTED AIRPORT WEATHER, ATC CAPACITY, TRAFFIC, ETC.
IN CASE OF EXTENSIVE DELAY IFR FEEDBACK IS HIGHLY APPRECIATED.
SOURCE: SPL/OL
END VALID: 01FEB2013 2359Z
It has been in place for at least two years now because too many flights had to divert. What does it say? (layman's translation): 99% coverage in stead of the usual 90% coverage.....Which means:
The mentioned KLM flights have to take at least 16 minutes extra fuel, which is +/- 550 kgs.
The KLM flight that evening therefore had at least 16 minutes additional fuel which was added by dispatch. On top of that, the commander can add any extra fuel that he/she finds necessary.
The KLM flight thast night also had to comply to this company instruction, and therefore had at least this amount of additional fuel.
I hope this creates a picture as to how much fuel other a/c were carrying that evening.
I wonder what everybody else took? All those aircraft that didn't declare a Mayday
KLM uses statistics over the past two years, per a/c type, per destination, per flight number, etc. to determine how much fuel is needed for a particular flight.
The system works very well. It sometimes surprises me how accurate it is.
For some destinations however, it is not enough to just apply the decision tree that is in place. One of these destinations is LEMD/MAD.
So KLM has this company instruction in place, specifically for Madrid:
CO142/12 COMPANY NOTAM
**********************
MADRID LEMD/MAD.
CONTRARY TO OM A (BOM) 8.1 - 7.2, DUE TO UNEXPECTED DELAYS DURING
ARRIVALS ON FLIGHTS TO MAD, 99% CONT FUEL COVERAGE SHALL BE
APPLIED TO KL1699, KL1701, KL1703, KL1705 AND KL1707.
CREW AND FLIGHT DISPATCH ARE URGED TO COMMUNICATE ACTIVELY DURING
FLIGHT PREPARATION AND IN-FLIGHT TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF ACTUAL
AND EXPECTED AIRPORT WEATHER, ATC CAPACITY, TRAFFIC, ETC.
IN CASE OF EXTENSIVE DELAY IFR FEEDBACK IS HIGHLY APPRECIATED.
SOURCE: SPL/OL
END VALID: 01FEB2013 2359Z
It has been in place for at least two years now because too many flights had to divert. What does it say? (layman's translation): 99% coverage in stead of the usual 90% coverage.....Which means:
The mentioned KLM flights have to take at least 16 minutes extra fuel, which is +/- 550 kgs.
The KLM flight that evening therefore had at least 16 minutes additional fuel which was added by dispatch. On top of that, the commander can add any extra fuel that he/she finds necessary.
The KLM flight thast night also had to comply to this company instruction, and therefore had at least this amount of additional fuel.
I hope this creates a picture as to how much fuel other a/c were carrying that evening.
Last edited by fox niner; 30th Dec 2012 at 08:34.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC your amplified explanation is one i would go along with. Like you I would like to think I would never have found myself in that situation and would have made an early decision to "cut and run" to get ahead of the queue at the diversion airfield. Myself and the F/O would have then been having a nice relaxing cup of tea on the ground whilst waiting for ops to decide what they wanted us to do next, whilst some of my colleagues still in the air were wishing they had done the same.
In my opinion this has less to do with company fuel policy and more about the low experience levels of some of the crews.
We are both on the same page here.....
In my opinion this has less to do with company fuel policy and more about the low experience levels of some of the crews.
We are both on the same page here.....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F9 - thanks for that insight. A good solution. You will have people quaking in their shoes, of course at the thought of only '16 minutes extra' as a minimum
Do I assume that "99%" is 99% of the normal 5% and that the norm is 90% of same?
In my day, BA went completely 'statistical' on contingency and were often around 3% - with plogs worked on destination and arrival time. I do not recall them ever exceeding 5%.
EDIT: Actually having re-read your post, 16 minutes seems high for a 5% contingency? Did you have some other factor?
Do I assume that "99%" is 99% of the normal 5% and that the norm is 90% of same?
In my day, BA went completely 'statistical' on contingency and were often around 3% - with plogs worked on destination and arrival time. I do not recall them ever exceeding 5%.
EDIT: Actually having re-read your post, 16 minutes seems high for a 5% contingency? Did you have some other factor?
Last edited by BOAC; 30th Dec 2012 at 08:52.
''FR2054 plog was 5887kgs they took 6500kgs. 600kg extra.
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra.
FR5389 plog was 11,828kgs they took 12,720kgs. 800kg extra. .
If some of you looked at the facts you will realise they took enough fuel.''
Not in my book!
FR5998 plog was 8917kgs they took 9200kgs. 300kg extra.
FR5389 plog was 11,828kgs they took 12,720kgs. 800kg extra. .
If some of you looked at the facts you will realise they took enough fuel.''
Not in my book!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Aviation Authorities would have the balls, they would simply change the rules and establish a mandatory Requirement that EVERY Airline with ANY Aircraft has to carry a minimum additional Fuel for an Extra Flight Time of eg 20mins on top of the Flight planned Fuel.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airline, I work for is operating with Flight planned Fuel to STN. STN is a major Airport (at least for me). That's why it would make sense to have Extra Fuel for 20mins for EVERY Airport in Europe.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the point in taking 283Kg of extra fuel, what will it give you in a 738? maybe 7 minutes, my point here is that if you land with FRF + ALT fuel -283Kg after been given one and half holds it makes no odds, so whats the point?
If however you need to load extra fuel for any reason (other than say remote de ice) why piss about with 300Kg if you need it you need, i have lost count the number of times I have seen others go down the path of i need extra xxxx Kgs to be told it will mean off loading bags, to then say ok xxxxKgs - xxKgs?
If extra fuel is needed take if not don't, part of the reason that bean counter get the hump is that they see the fleets figures day after day with aircraft landing well above FRF+ALT+CON+ with additional fuel taken on top, there is nothing unprofessional or demeaning by a commander stating on a plog his/her reason for taking extra fuel on the contrary it demonstrates authority, some arse saying because I can is not acceptable.
Fuel league tables
A good management tool that should not be made public below hopefully a discrete CP. Someone will always be bottom and someone will always be top.
It encourages the less experienced (who may need it more) to take less than they are comfortable with, who then spend the entire flight obsessed with fuel remaining at destination rather than concentrating on the wider picture and generating options
Take it easy
London (LHR) is a special case, I have operated into LHR a couple of hundred times and at a guess have held (BOV) 1 in 3. At CDG i have operated a couple of thousand times and only ever held maybe a dozen times, mainly before the 4th runway opened, at STN it seems to be mainly Northern arrival that get held due to interaction with LTN and sequencing of arrival from the South East. 20 min is over the top for most European airports unless there are Wx issues in which 20 min is an absolute minimum
If however you need to load extra fuel for any reason (other than say remote de ice) why piss about with 300Kg if you need it you need, i have lost count the number of times I have seen others go down the path of i need extra xxxx Kgs to be told it will mean off loading bags, to then say ok xxxxKgs - xxKgs?
If extra fuel is needed take if not don't, part of the reason that bean counter get the hump is that they see the fleets figures day after day with aircraft landing well above FRF+ALT+CON+ with additional fuel taken on top, there is nothing unprofessional or demeaning by a commander stating on a plog his/her reason for taking extra fuel on the contrary it demonstrates authority, some arse saying because I can is not acceptable.
Fuel league tables
A good management tool that should not be made public below hopefully a discrete CP. Someone will always be bottom and someone will always be top.
It encourages the less experienced (who may need it more) to take less than they are comfortable with, who then spend the entire flight obsessed with fuel remaining at destination rather than concentrating on the wider picture and generating options
Take it easy
London (LHR) is a special case, I have operated into LHR a couple of hundred times and at a guess have held (BOV) 1 in 3. At CDG i have operated a couple of thousand times and only ever held maybe a dozen times, mainly before the 4th runway opened, at STN it seems to be mainly Northern arrival that get held due to interaction with LTN and sequencing of arrival from the South East. 20 min is over the top for most European airports unless there are Wx issues in which 20 min is an absolute minimum
Last edited by Facelookbovvered; 30th Dec 2012 at 09:55.
BOAC:
99% means: when you carry this amount of fuel, you have a 99% probability of arriving at your destination with all alternate fuel + final reserve fuel on board
90% means: when you carry this amount of fuel, you have only 90% probability of arriving at your destination with all alternate fuel + final reserve fuel on board
For all flights, 90% is the minimum amount. Once again, it is all statistics.
99% means: when you carry this amount of fuel, you have a 99% probability of arriving at your destination with all alternate fuel + final reserve fuel on board
90% means: when you carry this amount of fuel, you have only 90% probability of arriving at your destination with all alternate fuel + final reserve fuel on board
For all flights, 90% is the minimum amount. Once again, it is all statistics.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F9 - now I AM puzzled! Assuming your '16 minutes' reflects an ??AMS-MAD flight?? that works out to a contingency of around 10% - a positive luxury these days. How does KLM tie this into the regulatory 'contingency' requirement? Is that figure (cont) shown on the plog? Any ideas what the '90%' extra time would be?
Facelook - I agree with your para1 - personally I cannot see the point. The minimal extra 'thinking' it gives time for should have taken place before arrival. It looks to me like someone unwilling to exceed 300kg for whatever reason.
Re your para 3
- this is the factor many seem unable to recognise. You take extra fuel, perhaps on a regular basis 'just because', and on a regular basis you 'land well above FRF+ALT+CON' - obviously the 'extra' fuel was NOT needed on a regular basis. I cannot see what is so difficult about that.
Facelook - I agree with your para1 - personally I cannot see the point. The minimal extra 'thinking' it gives time for should have taken place before arrival. It looks to me like someone unwilling to exceed 300kg for whatever reason.
Re your para 3
aircraft landing well above FRF+ALT+CON+ with additional fuel taken on top,
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that they HAD taken extra fuel.
I would have taken a bit more because just as BOAC I prefer to offload my pax at destination. These guys might have had other priorities but as far as block fuel is concerned, what they did was NOT unsafe or crazy or unprofessional. They just limited their holding time above Madrid and the chances of dropping their pax at destination. That is between them and Ryanair. So why are we still discussing the ammount of block fuel?
What we can discuss is if they should have diverted earlier. That is ALL we can discuss regarding safety. And on that I have no comment because I wasn't there that night.
Regarding the Dutch TV program: what a sad state of journalism.
I would have taken a bit more because just as BOAC I prefer to offload my pax at destination. These guys might have had other priorities but as far as block fuel is concerned, what they did was NOT unsafe or crazy or unprofessional. They just limited their holding time above Madrid and the chances of dropping their pax at destination. That is between them and Ryanair. So why are we still discussing the ammount of block fuel?
What we can discuss is if they should have diverted earlier. That is ALL we can discuss regarding safety. And on that I have no comment because I wasn't there that night.
Regarding the Dutch TV program: what a sad state of journalism.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that the white rabbit has withdrawn the nonsensical post and the rest of the Alice characters seem to have quietened down, can we summarise this thread on a sensationalist TV programme with:
All aircraft took ENOUGH fuel
All three appear to have commenced diversion later than sensible, but still SAFELY
All three were caught by an apparently incompetent Lan Chile crew on the way to the div
All three exercised the correct procedures when short of fuel.
RyanAir management operate within the regulations regarding planned fuel uplifts.
There is significant feeling that EUOPS planning requirements, despite not having changed for at least 20 years, are wrong.
Now to avoid further 'Oozlum circling' round the same old trees, I ask the mods to either close or move this thread.
All aircraft took ENOUGH fuel
All three appear to have commenced diversion later than sensible, but still SAFELY
All three were caught by an apparently incompetent Lan Chile crew on the way to the div
All three exercised the correct procedures when short of fuel.
RyanAir management operate within the regulations regarding planned fuel uplifts.
There is significant feeling that EUOPS planning requirements, despite not having changed for at least 20 years, are wrong.
Now to avoid further 'Oozlum circling' round the same old trees, I ask the mods to either close or move this thread.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Unsettled
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since they seem awfully keen to change FLT duty limitations perhaps it is also time to review legal fuel requirements. Perhaps 30 minutes of holding fuel at 1500' is no longer adequate in today's super-congested airspace,
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
root - I don't think that will help. All that will do is effectively raise the F Reserves and folk will still be whinging and wetting their pants. If there is to be a change it would need to be EITHER a raised contingency OR a mandatory destination holding fuel OR some airport/runway/route analysis by airlines, monitored by the regulator and appropriate 'EXTRA' fuel added (as the CAA did with the London majors.)
However, no-one seems really bothered, and the airlines, quite reasonably, would scream blue murder and point out that 99% of all flights at the moment land with excess fuel - so what's the problem?
However, no-one seems really bothered, and the airlines, quite reasonably, would scream blue murder and point out that 99% of all flights at the moment land with excess fuel - so what's the problem?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
The 16 minutes is not a percentage of the flightplan fuel.
It is the average (90 % or 99%) of the delays in the previous months.
So in a month with lots of delays due to wx for instance, the cont fuel will reflect those delays and can even be 30 min.
In slow months, with no delays, it goes down to the minimum of 5 minutes.
This fuel will be presented to you as the minimum blockfuel for that flight. On top of that you can take extra fuel.
F9 - now I AM puzzled! Assuming your '16 minutes' reflects an ??AMS-MAD flight??
that works out to a contingency of around 10% - a positive luxury these days.
How does KLM tie this into the regulatory 'contingency' requirement? Is that
figure (cont) shown on the plog? Any ideas what the '90%' extra time would be?
that works out to a contingency of around 10% - a positive luxury these days.
How does KLM tie this into the regulatory 'contingency' requirement? Is that
figure (cont) shown on the plog? Any ideas what the '90%' extra time would be?
It is the average (90 % or 99%) of the delays in the previous months.
So in a month with lots of delays due to wx for instance, the cont fuel will reflect those delays and can even be 30 min.
In slow months, with no delays, it goes down to the minimum of 5 minutes.
This fuel will be presented to you as the minimum blockfuel for that flight. On top of that you can take extra fuel.
Last edited by sleeper; 30th Dec 2012 at 14:26.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are saying that the 'extra' goes down as contingency? I don't think you would get away with that in the UK since the CAA have insisted (rightly IMO) that holding fuel is added to trip. Then 'contingency' is added.
Thanks for the clarification. Whichever way it helps to sort the dilemma.
Thanks for the clarification. Whichever way it helps to sort the dilemma.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cont fuel is added to the flightplan by the despatcher and is always as described earlier. It is not included in tripfuel.
Extra fuel is added by the aircrew.
Those are the terms used in my company, cont and extra fuel.
Extra fuel is added by the aircrew.
Those are the terms used in my company, cont and extra fuel.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Italy
Age: 65
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scum??
How can you call FR pilots scum? Its easy talking from a position with a sucure job, now you loose the job and FR needs pilots........
We are all profesioal pilots and we should all respect each other
We are all profesioal pilots and we should all respect each other
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....and indeed, sleeper, I think standard terms. What I am saying is that 'contingency' is not intended for arrival delays, but for other unexpected abnormalities. Where 'arrival delays' are anticipated, the UK CAA require that added to planned trip. Same result, different approach.
Out of interest, can you, as with 'true' contingency fuel, 'legally' burn all your 'contingency' before take-off and what happens if you do use it all en-route before destination? ie Is it just a planning 'thought' or an operational one?
Out of interest, can you, as with 'true' contingency fuel, 'legally' burn all your 'contingency' before take-off and what happens if you do use it all en-route before destination? ie Is it just a planning 'thought' or an operational one?