'KLM also takes risks by taking as less as possible fuel' according politician
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'KLM also takes risks by taking as less as possible fuel' according politician
Today one of the biggest newspapers in the Netherlands, AD, has a story on the frontpage titled 'KLM also takes risks' (translation of 'Ook KLM neemt risico's')
Decided to start a new thread on this news to keep the Ryanair thread on topic. I guess that topic will get some more new postings this week.
The news has been reported to the newspaper by SP (left wing political party in the Netherlands) by member of parliament Farshad Bashir.
Bashir sent a message on Twitter that he contacted the largest Dutch newspaper Telegraaf about this 'news' weeks ago. But Telegraaf did not publish his info. No strange as Telegraaf is very much a pro KLM newspaper.
The article (in Dutch) can be read here:
'Ook KLM laat piloten met weinig brandstof vliegen' - AD.nl
KLM responded that it does not recognize the complains and that safety is its first priority.
On page 2 the article continues with a big headline: SP (the political party): This is part of the company culture of KLM
To me this sounds the same as the KRO Reporter:
some journalists or politicians want to get their two minutes of fame. As cost reduction is important for allmost all airlines it is not strange that pilots are 'advised' to be economical with extra fuel. As long there are no sanctions I do not see a problem with that.
The translation by Google of the article on internet:
"Airline KLM also exerts pressure on its pilots to use as little fuel as possible to leave. Therefore be aware serious safety risks taken, find the SP. This reports the AD.
SP (political party) Member of Parliament Farshad Bashir spoke with several employees of KLM. "KLM allows pilots deliberately with enough fuel to fly to save costs," he concludes. This "economy" led in 2009 to an incident that so far remained outside the publicity, but stated in a report that the newspaper in his hands.
A Boeing 747 of KLM was en route to Los Angeles, when it appeared that the fuel was running low and the destination is not yet in sight. The pilot wanted 'operating manual' and follow a stopover. There would, however, not the airline. KLM put pressure on the captain, but nevertheless decided to make a stopover to refuel.
Ryanair
The European organization for pilots Agency shall examine the extent to which their pilots airlines put pressure on less fuel to fly. That said chairman Nico For Bach in response to a broadcast of the program KRO Reporter, that Friday was broadcast.
The program said four of Ryanair pilots under pressure to be put to minimize fuel to carry. This society would want to save money. Reporter in sounding the alarm about the pilots. "I hope it does not crash needed to awaken everyone," says one of them in Reporter.
Ryanair argues that the editors of the report Reporter 'only with rumors and speculation "has supported and" no effort "has done to the defense of Ryanair content to be included in the broadcast.
Mansveld
Wilma Mansveld Secretary for Infrastructure, the Irish government for clarification. That said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment Friday. "We have contacted the Irish authorities on this subject. They will come with a response. There is a research report prepared by the Irish. This we requested so we can study ", let the ministry know."
Decided to start a new thread on this news to keep the Ryanair thread on topic. I guess that topic will get some more new postings this week.
The news has been reported to the newspaper by SP (left wing political party in the Netherlands) by member of parliament Farshad Bashir.
Bashir sent a message on Twitter that he contacted the largest Dutch newspaper Telegraaf about this 'news' weeks ago. But Telegraaf did not publish his info. No strange as Telegraaf is very much a pro KLM newspaper.
The article (in Dutch) can be read here:
'Ook KLM laat piloten met weinig brandstof vliegen' - AD.nl
KLM responded that it does not recognize the complains and that safety is its first priority.
On page 2 the article continues with a big headline: SP (the political party): This is part of the company culture of KLM
To me this sounds the same as the KRO Reporter:
some journalists or politicians want to get their two minutes of fame. As cost reduction is important for allmost all airlines it is not strange that pilots are 'advised' to be economical with extra fuel. As long there are no sanctions I do not see a problem with that.
The translation by Google of the article on internet:
"Airline KLM also exerts pressure on its pilots to use as little fuel as possible to leave. Therefore be aware serious safety risks taken, find the SP. This reports the AD.
SP (political party) Member of Parliament Farshad Bashir spoke with several employees of KLM. "KLM allows pilots deliberately with enough fuel to fly to save costs," he concludes. This "economy" led in 2009 to an incident that so far remained outside the publicity, but stated in a report that the newspaper in his hands.
A Boeing 747 of KLM was en route to Los Angeles, when it appeared that the fuel was running low and the destination is not yet in sight. The pilot wanted 'operating manual' and follow a stopover. There would, however, not the airline. KLM put pressure on the captain, but nevertheless decided to make a stopover to refuel.
Ryanair
The European organization for pilots Agency shall examine the extent to which their pilots airlines put pressure on less fuel to fly. That said chairman Nico For Bach in response to a broadcast of the program KRO Reporter, that Friday was broadcast.
The program said four of Ryanair pilots under pressure to be put to minimize fuel to carry. This society would want to save money. Reporter in sounding the alarm about the pilots. "I hope it does not crash needed to awaken everyone," says one of them in Reporter.
Ryanair argues that the editors of the report Reporter 'only with rumors and speculation "has supported and" no effort "has done to the defense of Ryanair content to be included in the broadcast.
Mansveld
Wilma Mansveld Secretary for Infrastructure, the Irish government for clarification. That said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment Friday. "We have contacted the Irish authorities on this subject. They will come with a response. There is a research report prepared by the Irish. This we requested so we can study ", let the ministry know."
Last edited by 1stspotter; 31st Dec 2012 at 08:21.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done, 1stspotter - a new thread needed. I think AD and indeed the world may be surprised to hear that the policy is common across many major airlines. Reduction of 'contingency fuel' below the traditional 5% on a statistical basis (as KLM appears - see 'Dutch TV' thread) came into play in BA in my time (up to 2004).
It is not unreasonable to expect crews to make sensible decisions on extra fuel uplift rather than the 'historic' knee-jerk "I'll take a bit extra". As discussed ad nauseam in many threads - don't have enough? - divert. See what the bean counters make of that.
It is not unreasonable to expect crews to make sensible decisions on extra fuel uplift rather than the 'historic' knee-jerk "I'll take a bit extra". As discussed ad nauseam in many threads - don't have enough? - divert. See what the bean counters make of that.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the fuel on board complies with the regulation that has been formulated by the top professionals in the industry and has been in place for a long time, how can a journalist, who knows next to nothing about aviation deem it to be unsafe. Isn't this just another piece of sensationalism about nothing. If there is an argument for increasing the minimum fuel carried under the regulations, then make the case, and get the reg changed. Otherwise this, and the RY thred, are pointless discussions.
So what if there are, thunderstorms, fog, high cross winds, heavy rain, snow, traffic delays, there is always a provision to take extra in these circumstances. If you can't carry a full load in these circumstances then that's tough for the company. If there is a delay to the arrival hold until you reach the minimum fuel to divert then go somewhere else. If the pilot does his/her planning right, both before take off and en-route, then there is no reduction to safety.
So what if there are, thunderstorms, fog, high cross winds, heavy rain, snow, traffic delays, there is always a provision to take extra in these circumstances. If you can't carry a full load in these circumstances then that's tough for the company. If there is a delay to the arrival hold until you reach the minimum fuel to divert then go somewhere else. If the pilot does his/her planning right, both before take off and en-route, then there is no reduction to safety.
Last edited by Best foot forward; 31st Dec 2012 at 09:00.
The answer is simple - stop reading the newspapers!
I did so about 4 years ago (also eliminated TV and radio news and try to avoid reading same on the internet!).
My life is much more harmonious as a result.
I did so about 4 years ago (also eliminated TV and radio news and try to avoid reading same on the internet!).
My life is much more harmonious as a result.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: NL
Age: 30
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a situation on YT about a KLM 744 which is going to LAX, but has to stay at FL280 or FL290. They're burning more and the captain talks with the OCC to do a fuel and go, blah blah bah, afterall they continue safely.
How should they know they have to stay that low? Same situation.
How should they know they have to stay that low? Same situation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quote from the politician documented in the article:
"Some minor thing has to go wrong , like crosswind or be a bit to heavy, and the plane will burn more fuel than expected and will need more fuel enroute.
If this happens at a location where a stopover or emergency landing is not possible, there will be incalculable consequences"
He kind of suggests a plane could crash because KLM deliberately let pilots fly with not enough fuel in order to reduce costs.
"Some minor thing has to go wrong , like crosswind or be a bit to heavy, and the plane will burn more fuel than expected and will need more fuel enroute.
If this happens at a location where a stopover or emergency landing is not possible, there will be incalculable consequences"
He kind of suggests a plane could crash because KLM deliberately let pilots fly with not enough fuel in order to reduce costs.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quote from the politician documented in the article
The quality of Dutch 'investigative journalism' obviously leaves much to be desired.
Last edited by BOAC; 31st Dec 2012 at 09:35.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done, 1stspotter - a new thread needed. I think AD and indeed the world may be surprised to hear that the policy is common across many major airlines. Reduction of 'contingency fuel' below the traditional 5% on a statistical basis (as KLM appears - see 'Dutch TV' thread) came into play in BA in my time (up to 2004).
This was written:
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.
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.
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%.
KLM gives information on how much the kneejerk extra fuel should be based on statistics and dictates this amount on the crew by adding it in the blockfuel through contingency fuel, but does the name really matter?
Regarding BA taking less then 5% of trip fuel... my ops manual states this about reduced contingency
Reduction of Contingency Fuel by the Use of 3% ERA
Not less than 3% or 5 minutes, which ever is greater, of the planned Trip Fuel or in the event of in flight replanning, 3% of the Trip Fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an en-route alternate is available in accordance with the diagram below. The en-route alternate should be located within a circle having a radius equal to 20% of the total flight plan distance, the centre of which lies on the planned route at a distance from the destination of 25% of the total flight plan distance, or at 20% of the total flight plan distance plus 50 NM, whichever is the greater; as illustrated below.
Not less than 3% or 5 minutes, which ever is greater, of the planned Trip Fuel or in the event of in flight replanning, 3% of the Trip Fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an en-route alternate is available in accordance with the diagram below. The en-route alternate should be located within a circle having a radius equal to 20% of the total flight plan distance, the centre of which lies on the planned route at a distance from the destination of 25% of the total flight plan distance, or at 20% of the total flight plan distance plus 50 NM, whichever is the greater; as illustrated below.
Again BOAC, learn to read! BA is not the worlds envy you know...
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Dec 2012 at 10:15.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dutch newspaper is in possession of a report made by DEGAS. This stands for Dutch Expert Group Aviation Safety. Content of the report was used by the newspaper as input for the article.
DEGAS Home
This is an independent advisory body in the Netherlands. Chairman is Benno Baksteen, a former KLM pilot and in recent past much seen at tv for aviation related events.
Goal of DEGAS is to increase safety in society by applying lessons learned in aviation.
DEGAS has written a report of the KLM flight which diverted to Las Vegas while KLM HQ wanted to pilot to continue to LAX even the plane could land there below minimum fuel.
DEGAS wrote another report about the pressure to reduce costs and the effect on the aviation safety. It is written in dutch and can be downloaded here.
http://www.adviescollege-degas.nl/li...s_2012-017.pdf
DEGAS Home
This is an independent advisory body in the Netherlands. Chairman is Benno Baksteen, a former KLM pilot and in recent past much seen at tv for aviation related events.
Goal of DEGAS is to increase safety in society by applying lessons learned in aviation.
DEGAS has written a report of the KLM flight which diverted to Las Vegas while KLM HQ wanted to pilot to continue to LAX even the plane could land there below minimum fuel.
DEGAS wrote another report about the pressure to reduce costs and the effect on the aviation safety. It is written in dutch and can be downloaded here.
http://www.adviescollege-degas.nl/li...s_2012-017.pdf
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 737jock
Does BA do this on a regular basis? And how does taking less then the minimum eu-ops dictated 5minutes /5% of trip involve statistics?
Regarding "learn to read!" - why not follow your own advice. Ask a pilot to show you a copy of EUOPS and you can read Appendix 1 to OPS 1.255, 1.3 (a) (iv). Perhaps you could then return here and educate us all with how you understand that alleviation. Nothing to do with "3% ERA" by the way.
Now from your own post
In slow months, with no delays, it goes down to the minimum of 5 minutes.
Does BA do this on a regular basis?
I'm tempted to
here but I know it upsets some sensitive souls.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1stspotter
DEGAS has written a report of the KLM flight which diverted to Las Vegas while KLM HQ wanted to pilot to continue to LAX even the plane could land there below minimum fuel.
) no-one can comment. IE What do they mean by" below minimum fuel" - as we can see on PPRune, 'minimum fuel' appears to be quite subjective and sometimes quite over-emotional - below F Reserve/Below CMR/Below CMR plus some company figure?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC you idiot, I quoted that! Quoted it from someone else, the person who explained to you how KLM's CONT 90 99 works, and what you clearly don't understand!
As such I did NOT WRITE IT! FFS!!! You really can't read, are you sure you have basic education?
Its 5% of trip or 5 minutes whatever is more!!!
Maybe its time to apply some moderating to your own posts...
As such I did NOT WRITE IT! FFS!!! You really can't read, are you sure you have basic education?
Its 5% of trip or 5 minutes whatever is more!!!
Maybe its time to apply some moderating to your own posts...
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Dec 2012 at 11:59.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lack of data!
At the moment we have a thread were the mud is being slung around and people are calling other people idiots without grounds to do so.
The fuel planning will by its vary nature change from hour to hour, what is safe for a route in the morning may well be unsafe six hours later.
Statments about an airline operations department telling a pilot to continue rather than divert are common, OCC have a job to do and this gets much more difficult when aircraft are in the wrong place, if the aircraft fuel state is borderline leagal for the destination then they will always say continue. It is for the aircraft commander to decide if the flight is safe to continue and to take the appropriate course of action.
I can't help thinking that some of you do not fully understand the responsabilitys of being an aircraft commander, the job will involve you standing up and telling OCC and others that they can't have their way on safety grounds.
As the commander you may have to justify your decisions to the airline management, it is only when an aircraft commander is fired for making what at the time and with the information avalable correct decision that the media should be writing the shock, horror & outrage headlines.
The fuel planning will by its vary nature change from hour to hour, what is safe for a route in the morning may well be unsafe six hours later.
Statments about an airline operations department telling a pilot to continue rather than divert are common, OCC have a job to do and this gets much more difficult when aircraft are in the wrong place, if the aircraft fuel state is borderline leagal for the destination then they will always say continue. It is for the aircraft commander to decide if the flight is safe to continue and to take the appropriate course of action.
I can't help thinking that some of you do not fully understand the responsabilitys of being an aircraft commander, the job will involve you standing up and telling OCC and others that they can't have their way on safety grounds.
As the commander you may have to justify your decisions to the airline management, it is only when an aircraft commander is fired for making what at the time and with the information avalable correct decision that the media should be writing the shock, horror & outrage headlines.
Last edited by A and C; 31st Dec 2012 at 12:37.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help thinking that some of you do not fully understand the responsabilitys of being an aircraft commander, the job will involve you standing up and telling OCC and others that they can't have their way on safety grounds.
However his assumptions regarding KLM contingency fuel, which is solely for planning, are based on misunderstood information from the Dutch tv show thread, which I quoted. Why should we start this thread with incorrect information in the second post???
Subsequently he makes that quote out to be my own creation and lacking understanding of basic contingency fuel policy.
Sorry but someone who uses the quoted information to imagine that KLM is reducing contingency fuel, in a similar way to BA, below the EU-ops basic is sadly misled. And it's even more remarkable that he didn't recognize this exact same information and subsequently discredits it for lacking basic fuel contingency understanding. Ergo an idiot, guided by his own feelings of superiority, leading him to only gain half an understanding of what was written.
The rest was simply a question to how BA policy regarding reducing contingency fuel works. In my company this can only be done by 3% ERA and then even not below 5 minutes.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Dec 2012 at 13:55.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone explain "diversion" fuel to me, and the logic behind EASA regs?
If you are required to divert, is it not reasonable to expect that many others will be doing the same. If that is a reasonable assumption, is it also reasonable to assume that you proposed route\level to your alternate might not be as you had expected, or hoped, due to the probability that others will have chosen the same alternate, and route thereto, or indeed the possibility of congestion at the now busy alternate?
Has this line of thinking been considered by the rule makers, or is this just another reason for leaving crews to determine what they wish to carry, without the need to consider repercussions when they add more, as was done in the past, for the "wife and kids."
If you are required to divert, is it not reasonable to expect that many others will be doing the same. If that is a reasonable assumption, is it also reasonable to assume that you proposed route\level to your alternate might not be as you had expected, or hoped, due to the probability that others will have chosen the same alternate, and route thereto, or indeed the possibility of congestion at the now busy alternate?
Has this line of thinking been considered by the rule makers, or is this just another reason for leaving crews to determine what they wish to carry, without the need to consider repercussions when they add more, as was done in the past, for the "wife and kids."
Last edited by sooty3694; 31st Dec 2012 at 15:03.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhat reluctant to get involved with the discussion as I fing the report about RYR and subsequent KLM to be sleazy journalism, but have to correct one thing about what has been written in regards to KLM fuel policy.
EU OPS specify as contingency fuel, either 5%, 3% with an ERA, or a statistical value to be approved by the authority. None to be less than 5 minutes.
KLM uses the statistical method. However the data being used is NOT from the last month as stated before but from the last 2 years!! Specifically, flight number, time and season etc, etc! They than define that into a 90 or 99 percent coverage. The decision to take either the 90 or 99 is dependant on whether the destination has more than 2 runways and forecasted visibility above 3000 mtrs.
This is the minimum fuel as calculated by dispatch!! The pilots then check the flightplan, wx, notams, etc, etc. and then decide whether they are happy or not which that number. If they are not they input a different fuel number in the flightplan computer!! No dispatch involved, nobody to tell you can't!! As a courtesy, usually the dispatcher is called and informed as for the reason but he doesn't argue!!
For RYR, I have no idea but neither had the Dutch reporter!
EU OPS specify as contingency fuel, either 5%, 3% with an ERA, or a statistical value to be approved by the authority. None to be less than 5 minutes.
KLM uses the statistical method. However the data being used is NOT from the last month as stated before but from the last 2 years!! Specifically, flight number, time and season etc, etc! They than define that into a 90 or 99 percent coverage. The decision to take either the 90 or 99 is dependant on whether the destination has more than 2 runways and forecasted visibility above 3000 mtrs.
This is the minimum fuel as calculated by dispatch!! The pilots then check the flightplan, wx, notams, etc, etc. and then decide whether they are happy or not which that number. If they are not they input a different fuel number in the flightplan computer!! No dispatch involved, nobody to tell you can't!! As a courtesy, usually the dispatcher is called and informed as for the reason but he doesn't argue!!
For RYR, I have no idea but neither had the Dutch reporter!
Irrespective of dispatchers dispatching, contingency contingencying at 5%/5 min or whatever surely once you've got going, whether it's LHR-CDG or AMS-LAX captain's rule one is "try not to land with less than 30 minutes of fuel....." or am I missing something?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have some common sense please. Fuel regs dictate the absolute minimum fuel an a/c can depart with. The calculations are very reasonable. I've been doing this a long time, in many different airlines, in various CAA's jurisdiction and on various a/c for long & short-haul. Never had a problem with the regs. It gave me a minimum start datum. There has to be a minimum limit, just as there as maximum limits for other parameters in our operations. Using this datum and all the other relevant data given to us at dispatch I then made a reasoned decision on what to take. Often the minimum was sufficient, sometimes not. Calculating the extra was the skill. Airlines are a private sector business and see how many have gone bust. Out of control costs don't help. It's all about common sense, statistics, risk management etc. If the company considers the occasional diversion, either at destination or en-route, to be acceptable in the year long costs of its operation then I don't have a problem with that. One airline I flew with make a statistical analysis of its home base weather over a couple of years and decided it was not cost effective to have CAT 3 a/c. Thus they accepted the few diversions due to fog. It was a foggy airfield in Autumn, but the numbers said CAT 3 would not have been such a saving grace X% of the time, so we stayed at CAT 1. This was in the days when a/c were not standard CAT 2/3. Was that unsafe? No, it was sometimes inconvenient. Extra fuel to hang around was not a problem.
Long-haul into the Caribbean with 150kts jet streams, and NPA at destination and dodgy weather forecasting was not a time to be on minimum. One airline tried to tell us that 5% contingency for the 12 hour flight was enough. No it wasn't. A diversion delayed the return due to crew duty times etc. However, on the return to Europe the ground was littered with CAT 3 airfields from first landfall well before destination. Minimum was usually more than enough. It's having the knowledge to make a sensible calculation and feeling free to do so. Other than that then there is a safety issue. Legal minimum is just that: it may not always be the sensible choice.
Long-haul into the Caribbean with 150kts jet streams, and NPA at destination and dodgy weather forecasting was not a time to be on minimum. One airline tried to tell us that 5% contingency for the 12 hour flight was enough. No it wasn't. A diversion delayed the return due to crew duty times etc. However, on the return to Europe the ground was littered with CAT 3 airfields from first landfall well before destination. Minimum was usually more than enough. It's having the knowledge to make a sensible calculation and feeling free to do so. Other than that then there is a safety issue. Legal minimum is just that: it may not always be the sensible choice.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel miniumums
Previous poster.
Not a rule of thumb, but a CARDINAL rule. If a commercial aircraft lands with less than 30 minutes worth of fuel, then the flight crew has not done their job properly. Having to declare a fuel emergency (valid MAYDAY) means there have been errors made along the way, CRITICAL errors. With provisions, we are operating with 30 minutes, alternate, and 3% on domestic and overseas routes. This means that little has to change before serious consideration must be made of landing prior to destination. It is a critical part of the pilots' job to monitor the fuel remaining and determine if the destination can be achieved with adequate (and legal... two different things) reserves.
"Pushing it" is not an option nor is permitting dispatch to run roughshod over the crew.
Not a rule of thumb, but a CARDINAL rule. If a commercial aircraft lands with less than 30 minutes worth of fuel, then the flight crew has not done their job properly. Having to declare a fuel emergency (valid MAYDAY) means there have been errors made along the way, CRITICAL errors. With provisions, we are operating with 30 minutes, alternate, and 3% on domestic and overseas routes. This means that little has to change before serious consideration must be made of landing prior to destination. It is a critical part of the pilots' job to monitor the fuel remaining and determine if the destination can be achieved with adequate (and legal... two different things) reserves.
"Pushing it" is not an option nor is permitting dispatch to run roughshod over the crew.