Ryanair secrets?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 22
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
The Spanish controller gave the impression that 'low fuel' was used as a expedient to gain priority in landing - a tactic that if, as I understand the documentary, would cause chaos if all airlines adopted the same approach.
A search for low cost accidents brings up a site with details of incidents with low cost airlines. I would be interested in a professional view of how they compare. It seems at first glance that whilst all airlines have issues, and those issues were competently dealt with, FR seemed to have more than their fair share due to pilot impatience. If you sail close to the wind all the time then you will capsize. F1 drivers will come off the track in an endeavour to learn their cars' limits. A bit disconcerting if that approach is how I am being transported on my travels.
A Free Market Solution.
Every airport operator should have a system of continuous auction for approach slots. All ailines*, high cost as well as low cost, have a continuous auction for sale of their product. This continuous auction idea(of which I fully approve) should be extended to the other end e.g. carriage of lifejackets, provision of crash fire service, gate slots(already sort of done) take-off slots, everything.
As well as the auction system airport operators should have a levy against aircraft declaring fuel emergency. This levy going to FULLY compensate the preceding bid queue for total extra cost. With my suggested system in place I think the ailines might change their fuel policies slightly.
*Originally a typo but I quite like it. Maybe for use with only certain airlines.
As well as the auction system airport operators should have a levy against aircraft declaring fuel emergency. This levy going to FULLY compensate the preceding bid queue for total extra cost. With my suggested system in place I think the ailines might change their fuel policies slightly.
*Originally a typo but I quite like it. Maybe for use with only certain airlines.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underfire - I don't know how much CCMs earn in Ryanair but comparing their earnings to your US regional pilot salaries is comparing apples and oranges. For a start you can choose which state you wish to live in and expect to pay something as low as 20% combined state and federal taxes. Then there are the lower living costs. Taxes in Europe are huge as are living costs, housing, petrol etc.
Your regional pilot will reside in a lovely low cost winabago that will be conveniently be located next to the airfield of their choice for a cross country commute to work
Much better quality of life than the poor European low cost cabin crew.
Your regional pilot will reside in a lovely low cost winabago that will be conveniently be located next to the airfield of their choice for a cross country commute to work
Much better quality of life than the poor European low cost cabin crew.
Last edited by MCDU2; 21st Aug 2013 at 07:58.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Buster
BOAC - you have obviously never run out of fuel and crashed?
On 'Fuel league tables' - I often wonder if those at 'the bottom' are those who always put on 'extra' even when it is obviously not needed at the planning stage? In BA shorthaul at LGW the top of the 'fuel tables' (yes, even BA..) was stuffed with management pilots who only 'chose' to fly on nice days in the afternoon leaving all the early morning CAT II/III sectors to we hairies
. In which case, our 'pilota nervosa' could TRY loading PLOG on a decent day unless it would cause a nervous breakdown - in which case I suggest they are in the wrong job. There seems to be a muddled mindset in a certain group of pilots that if you load PLOG and get a delay you will crash/die.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, with respect, the BA flightplanners probably gave you a plog fuel that was quite fat in the first place. You know, sensible diversion airfiled, realistic cruize alt, full contingency etc etc. Mate of mine, with a Mid East carrier, was always top of the fuel league tables because he always carried "min". He argued that the min figure was always generous. No need to round off to the next couple of hundred kgs etc. He had worked, previously, for a bucket & spade outfit that, quite legally, cut all the corners but offered alarmingly low plog fuel fugures. For that outfit, he was always at the bottom of the league and regularly asked why he kept rounding up the plog fuel ! I followed him into the same ME carrier & tried to convince them that they were carrying too much fuel ! Got nowhere !
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but BA's tables are not really relevant to a RY thread and were only mentioned to emphasise the message that they did not always show the 'truth'. This is clouding my message - "why not try PLOG (or PLOG+300) and see what happens. Let me know if you die".
As a further anecdotal irrelevance, I once flow with a BA skipper who REDUCED PLOG fuel by nominating LPL as a (westerley) MAN div instead of the EMA fuel printed on the PLOG. Sheesh! Oh yes - we didn't die then either.
As a further anecdotal irrelevance, I once flow with a BA skipper who REDUCED PLOG fuel by nominating LPL as a (westerley) MAN div instead of the EMA fuel printed on the PLOG. Sheesh! Oh yes - we didn't die then either.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- never. But I have run extremely short on 3 occasions and force-landed once, so I don't think I need your 'experience' there, thanks. One of the three would have been fatal within 5 minutes if I had not made the tanker over the North Sea in February, but that is not relevant in this (RyanAir) thread.
When you get down to fumes and it all goes quiet - it's time to blame miscalculation - but what?
I just think passengers assume better odds when flying, between life and death.
PS. Death can be fatal.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC. With the greatest of respect to your undoubted wealth of experience and an appreciation of your admission that "not relevant in this thread" I find you make the comment to make point that you`ve been there and got the t` shirt. I too am a child of the uckers board and served back in 82. What I think you don`t have is the appreciation that self employed pilots today face the sack at a moments notice if they don`t toe exactly the line drawn by management. As most Ryanair pilots don`t post on here for fear of repercussions I wouldn`t be surprised to learn of tea and biscuits for landing at an alternate with an extra 15 minutes of fuel above legal minimums.
I can imagine the conversation... "shall we divert then?"...... "best leave it to the last minute, don`t want to get into trouble for diverting when someone behind us makes it in, besides, I`ve got a lucrative 4 sector day tomorrow and I can`t afford to night stop and miss out on that".
I can imagine the conversation... "shall we divert then?"...... "best leave it to the last minute, don`t want to get into trouble for diverting when someone behind us makes it in, besides, I`ve got a lucrative 4 sector day tomorrow and I can`t afford to night stop and miss out on that".
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Db and Df - let's not get too involved in my stories - the post was only to answer DB's 'accusation' ) and yes, DB, I made the basket with 5 minutes remaining
- I strongly doubt that, since there would also be 'tea no biscuits' for landing with fuel well above CMR due to extra loaded and not used on the majority of occasions, no?
The rest of your 'pressures' I accept but they are not confined to RY!
DW - no.
.
Originally Posted by doubtfire
I wouldn`t be surprised to learn of tea and biscuits for landing at an alternate with an extra 15 minutes of fuel above legal minimums.
The rest of your 'pressures' I accept but they are not confined to RY!
DW - no.
.
Last edited by BOAC; 21st Aug 2013 at 14:56.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC. My jibe at tea and biscuits was not predicated on how much fuel was loaded at departure, but on the decision of when to divert and being sure of the divert fuel figure given on the plog. I stand by my remark that big commercial pressure is there on contract pilots to leave it to the last minute for the reasons I gave. In a company where they put you up in a good hotel and pay you night stop allowance with no loss of earnings for the following day, I would suggest, creates a different mindset to someone is going to be well out of pocket and favour for diverting. It is also this same culture that promps folk to turn up at the briefing table clearly unfit for duty but there nevertheless for fear of losing money
Colgan was for some other governing agency to wake up to. We`ll need our own smoking hole before ours do.
Colgan was for some other governing agency to wake up to. We`ll need our own smoking hole before ours do.
DW
There were 3 different parts in BA colours at LGW in my time 1998-2001.
GB as you said as a BA franchise.
BA Longhaul
and European Operations Gatwick (EOG) which was a mix of ex DanAir 737-400s and BA 737-400s and latterly BA 737-300s. The easyJet network from LGW today reflects much of the EOG network then plus some.
BOAC
The fuel tables at EOG must have been introduced, in a de-identified form via pin Nos, around 2000.
I remember being very happy with my position at 55 out of 110 captains, neither too cautious nor too gung ho. The grey man favoured by RTI training!
1066
There were 3 different parts in BA colours at LGW in my time 1998-2001.
GB as you said as a BA franchise.
BA Longhaul
and European Operations Gatwick (EOG) which was a mix of ex DanAir 737-400s and BA 737-400s and latterly BA 737-300s. The easyJet network from LGW today reflects much of the EOG network then plus some.
BOAC
The fuel tables at EOG must have been introduced, in a de-identified form via pin Nos, around 2000.
I remember being very happy with my position at 55 out of 110 captains, neither too cautious nor too gung ho. The grey man favoured by RTI training!
1066
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'When to divert' is when you can no longer achieve CMR at touchdown - or earlier, of course. The former easily proven if the suits have go at you - from your PLOG.
Out of interest I spent my last almost 5 years after BA as what is now known as a 'zero-hour' pilot (then an 'ad hoc') with a small airline with the same 'insecurity', and not once was my fuel uplift ever questioned, be it PLOG or extra, and not once did I wish I had more. I think that without exception careful routing and level choices actually 'made' fuel en-route too. I accept I came into it with a background of experience, but from what we read, RY does not actually appear to be quite so draconian as some suggest. It could even be that those at the 'bottom' were extravagant and need 'educating'? Who knows - they probably do.
1066 - yes, 2000-2001 I think. I actually told one suit I didn't give a fig where I was and invited him to 'insert' the book.
Out of interest I spent my last almost 5 years after BA as what is now known as a 'zero-hour' pilot (then an 'ad hoc') with a small airline with the same 'insecurity', and not once was my fuel uplift ever questioned, be it PLOG or extra, and not once did I wish I had more. I think that without exception careful routing and level choices actually 'made' fuel en-route too. I accept I came into it with a background of experience, but from what we read, RY does not actually appear to be quite so draconian as some suggest. It could even be that those at the 'bottom' were extravagant and need 'educating'? Who knows - they probably do.
1066 - yes, 2000-2001 I think. I actually told one suit I didn't give a fig where I was and invited him to 'insert' the book.
I’m surprised at the attitude some pilots express regarding safe fuel margins. There seems to be a attitude that the regulations provide for safe fuel levels in some parts of the industry. They promulgate the minimum for safe operation and should be a starting point for any fuel calculation and not the target. If everything goes well, then the minimums will be enough. Get allocated a cruise level two down from planned, or do a 100nm weather deviation, then the contingency is gone and now there is no margin for the unexpected, such as the weather at destination being worse than forecast.
A good example of how it can go wrong is the CIAIC report on the incident at Alicante in May 2010 where a RYR aircraft landed at its alternate with less than reserve fuel. It gives useful insight into the mind-set of the RYR pilot workforce. The crew were both quite young, but not inexperienced. Their experience as detailed in the report suggests that they had flown most of their careers with RYR and had developed their operational philosophy within the constraints of that system. This is probably why the crew elected not to carry any additional fuel above the 5% contingency despite planning to arrive at an airfield with a fairly good likelihood of less than optimal weather. The commander elected not to carry the 300kg allowed by the company without explanation. However, they had a little extra on arrival – they were slightly lighter and having not used the contingency, were slightly up on fuel. This may have led them into complacency.
The result was that after the first go-around, the crew had a little spare fuel, but not enough for what they then attempted. They obviously felt pressure to make the second approach. The RYR criteria for dropping the alternate aren’t known to us, but if they exist and were available to this crew, they very unwisely decided to make this second attempt to land. However, they did have the sense to abort that attempt early and opt for the diversion.
But their fuel state gave them no breathing room and the details from the report suggest they were now under a great deal of stress and made errors.
Just taking the 300kg would have given them enough time to feel comfortable, albeit only about eight minutes flying time. An additional 600kg would have given them enough fuel to try the second approach safely. The net result of the decision to take no extra was a declared emergency and RYR operations being put under the spotlight - again!
I will leave the individual to decide whether this fuel decision was sensible, but I can honestly say that I would have taken more - quite a bit more. A quick rule of thumb calculation reveals that 300kg would have cost about US$30 to carry at today’s price. If the margins at RYR are that tight, then I could accept that there is a good reason. But looking at their results for last year, it’s clear to me they are putting profit ahead of safety.
It appears that some pilots feel it’s OK to routinely operate like this – but I’m not one of them. Saving that $30 (none of which will go into my pocket) would not be my priority.
A good example of how it can go wrong is the CIAIC report on the incident at Alicante in May 2010 where a RYR aircraft landed at its alternate with less than reserve fuel. It gives useful insight into the mind-set of the RYR pilot workforce. The crew were both quite young, but not inexperienced. Their experience as detailed in the report suggests that they had flown most of their careers with RYR and had developed their operational philosophy within the constraints of that system. This is probably why the crew elected not to carry any additional fuel above the 5% contingency despite planning to arrive at an airfield with a fairly good likelihood of less than optimal weather. The commander elected not to carry the 300kg allowed by the company without explanation. However, they had a little extra on arrival – they were slightly lighter and having not used the contingency, were slightly up on fuel. This may have led them into complacency.
The result was that after the first go-around, the crew had a little spare fuel, but not enough for what they then attempted. They obviously felt pressure to make the second approach. The RYR criteria for dropping the alternate aren’t known to us, but if they exist and were available to this crew, they very unwisely decided to make this second attempt to land. However, they did have the sense to abort that attempt early and opt for the diversion.
But their fuel state gave them no breathing room and the details from the report suggest they were now under a great deal of stress and made errors.
Just taking the 300kg would have given them enough time to feel comfortable, albeit only about eight minutes flying time. An additional 600kg would have given them enough fuel to try the second approach safely. The net result of the decision to take no extra was a declared emergency and RYR operations being put under the spotlight - again!
I will leave the individual to decide whether this fuel decision was sensible, but I can honestly say that I would have taken more - quite a bit more. A quick rule of thumb calculation reveals that 300kg would have cost about US$30 to carry at today’s price. If the margins at RYR are that tight, then I could accept that there is a good reason. But looking at their results for last year, it’s clear to me they are putting profit ahead of safety.
It appears that some pilots feel it’s OK to routinely operate like this – but I’m not one of them. Saving that $30 (none of which will go into my pocket) would not be my priority.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
This may have led them into complacency.............(Yup!) The result was that after the first go-around, the crew had a little spare fuel, but not enough for what they then attempted.
If the weather was as you imply, I would have hoped a good base captain would have chided them for not taking 'more'.
With respect I think this issue is being made far more complicated than need be.
Commanders should take enough (extra if deemed necessary) fuel and make operational decisions such that they are never in a position where they have to declare a Mayday.
This means crews must have the experience, training, management back up, operational SOPs and moral courage to make the correct decisions wrt fuel.
End of!
Commanders should take enough (extra if deemed necessary) fuel and make operational decisions such that they are never in a position where they have to declare a Mayday.
This means crews must have the experience, training, management back up, operational SOPs and moral courage to make the correct decisions wrt fuel.
End of!