Ryanair secrets?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANGRY FROM PURLEY POSTING #151
Try reading your back numbers of "CHIRP", if you are a UK reg'd professional pilot in receipt of this journal?
Try reading the editorial in the latest edition from the outgoing gaffer of that organisation and then think again about asking me or anyone else to contact any TV programme maker.
C4 have the ability to direct their researchers towards this and other sources, for whatever reason they have not done so.
The delay in replying to your intemperate posting is due to the fact that I'm operating close to 100hrs/28 days and only just read your "contribution"!
Try reading the editorial in the latest edition from the outgoing gaffer of that organisation and then think again about asking me or anyone else to contact any TV programme maker.
C4 have the ability to direct their researchers towards this and other sources, for whatever reason they have not done so.
The delay in replying to your intemperate posting is due to the fact that I'm operating close to 100hrs/28 days and only just read your "contribution"!
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report on the Madrid diversions on 26th July 2012 is included in this report on the diversion from Alicante to Valencia in May 2010.
http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/5..._FINAL_ENG.pdf
The comment on the bottom of page 17 and 18 is interesting and well worth reading.
Page 25 has a report on the 12th July diversions, unfortunately is doesn't include the TAF for the day. The TAF and METAR are available on
Display metars
What is clear about both incidents is that all aircraft had close to minimum fuel as per company policy as set out on page 17.
Before I retired my own policy was to carry Flight Plan fuel except where the forecast weather was poor or there were known delays into the destination. When this was the case I didn't carry an extra 3 to 500 kgs but a minimum of 1000 and normally 2000 when thunderstorms were forecast.
If the Channel 4 report on a fuel league is correct that additional fuel would have been enough to put me at the bottom of the league while putting safety first. Fuel leagues should be banned by the regulatory authority.
The other issue that needs to be banned by the regulatory authorities is the use of contract staff who are on zero hour contracts and paid by the hour. Such contracts are in my view contrary to good safe practice as it could put pressure on individuals to toe the line whether or not that was the intention of the airline.
http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/5..._FINAL_ENG.pdf
The comment on the bottom of page 17 and 18 is interesting and well worth reading.
Page 25 has a report on the 12th July diversions, unfortunately is doesn't include the TAF for the day. The TAF and METAR are available on
Display metars
What is clear about both incidents is that all aircraft had close to minimum fuel as per company policy as set out on page 17.
Before I retired my own policy was to carry Flight Plan fuel except where the forecast weather was poor or there were known delays into the destination. When this was the case I didn't carry an extra 3 to 500 kgs but a minimum of 1000 and normally 2000 when thunderstorms were forecast.
If the Channel 4 report on a fuel league is correct that additional fuel would have been enough to put me at the bottom of the league while putting safety first. Fuel leagues should be banned by the regulatory authority.
The other issue that needs to be banned by the regulatory authorities is the use of contract staff who are on zero hour contracts and paid by the hour. Such contracts are in my view contrary to good safe practice as it could put pressure on individuals to toe the line whether or not that was the intention of the airline.
Last edited by sky9; 22nd Aug 2013 at 21:41. Reason: corrected the weather link
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on, Sky9 - tell us what you did with your extra '2000kgs'. Did you increase CMR by 2000kg? Did you hold for 40+ minutes? I'm intrigued. Presumably you had some idea why you carried it? As someone who spent half his flying life short of fuel I LOVE lots of it, but cannot see the point in tankering it around for no reason.
More fuel does NOT mean 'safety first' per se.
More fuel does NOT mean 'safety first' per se.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spent half his flying life short of fuel I LOVE lots of it
I smell troll.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AB, Would you have operated a flight into MAD that evening if you couldn't carry more than min fuel because of a weight restriction, for example?
Maybe you'll answer this time?
Maybe you'll answer this time?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of trolls, AB, may I de-troll the quote you gave?
Quite a chunk you conveniently dropped off there. Now, answer our questions?
I guess he would have to refuse on safety grounds, LSM?
Just noticed, AB
- Specsavers for you? To save you the bother, here is what I posted on your other 'Ryanair' thread
As someone who spent half his flying life short of fuel I LOVE lots of it, but cannot see the point in tankering it around for no reason.
I guess he would have to refuse on safety grounds, LSM?
Just noticed, AB
smugly boasted that you'd have gone with PLOG? Into PROB40 TS in MAD????
To summarise - taking PLOG that night would have been fine - instant div on first delay - or earlier even. No, I would not have done it, nor would I recommend it, but it is not UNSAFE as has been pointed out by other highly professional pilots on the other thread.
Last edited by BOAC; 20th Aug 2013 at 19:49.
I am quite glad that I have retired; I have had a wonderful flying career that has lasted since I first went solo in 1957.
I recently had a couple of beers with a young man that I had something to do with during his flying career and who is now in his sixth year with FR.
He is now in his third year as a captain and he simply does not recognise the suggestions in the Media that he is under huge pressure to go flying with insufficient fuel.
He tells me that all he has to do is annotate on the voyage report as to why he carried additional fuel. This has NEVER EVER been queried.
I have said this before but I will say it again.
When i was a DC-10 captain with Fred Laker, we always carried extra fuel for JFK and ORD. This was really a waste of time. When the weather was reasonable (most of the time) we didn't need the extra fuel and burned 10% of it getting there.
When the weather was bad, we would go round the MICKE hold for an hour and then end up diverting to Boston.
I then flew the same aircraft for an FAA Part 121 carrier and they went for minimum fuel.
Now, I quite liked that idea in the end. It meant that when we bowled up to MICKE INTXN and were told to go in the hold for an indeterminate time, we asked for an immediate diversion to Bradley.
This took all the guesswork out of the equation.
Trying to carry enough fuel to guarantee a landing at JFK is impossible.
After all, how could you possibly plan for BA closing both runways at LHR for 90 minutes when both cowls come off one of their A319s?
I recently had a couple of beers with a young man that I had something to do with during his flying career and who is now in his sixth year with FR.
He is now in his third year as a captain and he simply does not recognise the suggestions in the Media that he is under huge pressure to go flying with insufficient fuel.
He tells me that all he has to do is annotate on the voyage report as to why he carried additional fuel. This has NEVER EVER been queried.
I have said this before but I will say it again.
When i was a DC-10 captain with Fred Laker, we always carried extra fuel for JFK and ORD. This was really a waste of time. When the weather was reasonable (most of the time) we didn't need the extra fuel and burned 10% of it getting there.
When the weather was bad, we would go round the MICKE hold for an hour and then end up diverting to Boston.
I then flew the same aircraft for an FAA Part 121 carrier and they went for minimum fuel.
Now, I quite liked that idea in the end. It meant that when we bowled up to MICKE INTXN and were told to go in the hold for an indeterminate time, we asked for an immediate diversion to Bradley.
This took all the guesswork out of the equation.
Trying to carry enough fuel to guarantee a landing at JFK is impossible.
After all, how could you possibly plan for BA closing both runways at LHR for 90 minutes when both cowls come off one of their A319s?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent. I believe a lot of posters on here could do with copies too. I think most of the PPRune 'whingers' 'whinge' because they don't really know WHY they want the extra fuel.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've run out of fuel - never again...
BOAC - you have obviously never run out of fuel and crashed?
For those of us who have, it leaves quite a memory to never, ever let it happen again.
For those of us who have, it leaves quite a memory to never, ever let it happen again.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BetterOnACamel
I guess he would have to refuse on safety grounds, LSM?
DB, how did that happen?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
"He tells me that all he has to do is annotate on the voyage report as to why he carried additional fuel. This has NEVER EVER been queried."
So this is what Dispatches interprets as 'having to justify in writing carrying extra fuel'. Thank you, very interesting and reassuring. I had my doubts watching the programme remembering Dispatches' previous excursion into aviation and its low journalistic standards, c.2001.
"He tells me that all he has to do is annotate on the voyage report as to why he carried additional fuel. This has NEVER EVER been queried."
So this is what Dispatches interprets as 'having to justify in writing carrying extra fuel'. Thank you, very interesting and reassuring. I had my doubts watching the programme remembering Dispatches' previous excursion into aviation and its low journalistic standards, c.2001.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Spandex Masher,
A mix of human error and technical error, but mostly technical - non airliner.
That's why you need a bit for Mum.
Wouldn't it be fun to put MOL in a sim with min fuel and watch him sweat when the gear won't go down on a minimums approach....?
I just don't think he would hack it.
A mix of human error and technical error, but mostly technical - non airliner.
That's why you need a bit for Mum.
Wouldn't it be fun to put MOL in a sim with min fuel and watch him sweat when the gear won't go down on a minimums approach....?
I just don't think he would hack it.