Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Too close for comfort - easyJet lands with 18m fuel

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Too close for comfort - easyJet lands with 18m fuel

Old 28th Jan 2024, 00:25
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,534
Received 48 Likes on 30 Posts
An extra fuel used list would be more useful, then you could see if you were carrying excess unnecessarily. I estimate that half of the time I take extra, I use it.
krismiler is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2024, 08:33
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peristatos
I don't see the problem, extra fuel not used for a go around means less fuel to tank the next flight?
Say you have 2000 flights / day carrying 800kg extra for that go around that’s not actually flown. 2 hours average flight time x 3-4% of extra weight carried in extra fuel burn per hour. That’s $85k. Per day. Say “only” 25% of the flights carry this extra fuel. $7.5m per year. There’s the “problem”.

CP
CaptainProp is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2024, 11:35
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,534
Received 48 Likes on 30 Posts
Getting extra fuel right all the time is like expecting to play the stock market and always buy at the troughs and sell at the peaks, it doesn’t happen in real life.

Amazingly, the time and fuel used in avoiding weather is never questioned, I’ve gone over 100 miles off track before and never had it brought up by management. Not injuring and traumatising the pax and not over stressing the airframe is something they don’t seem to mind.
krismiler is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2024, 13:34
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The point is, as already mentioned by several ppl here, take fuel when weather / situation call for it, not to try to avoid any and all diversions on a standard day. That’s not only financially sound but also safe.
CaptainProp is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 19:49
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CaptainProp
... take fuel when weather / situation call for it, not to try to avoid any and all diversions on a standard day. ...
What is a "standard day"?


I have experienced three occasions when the airport has been closed on a CAVOK day with light winds. On two occasions the aeroplane behind us had an incident closing the airfield and causing everyone else to divert. (Both were A320s, one went off the side of the runway to avoid an overrun, the other landed with the brakes on...! That should identify the airport!) and myself had to hold and very nearly divert when a light aircraft had gone off the runway, closing the airport. So don't think that diverts are 'only' weather related! And, as albatross has correctly said, you won't be the only one diverting so it might be worth considering where you divert to if there are other options. Also, I once had a weather divert (with plenty of fuel!) where our company asked us not to divert to our first diversion as the local team's 'away' football match meant that there were no busses for the pax.


Diverts can become very complex and what is a "standard day"!!

NoelEvans is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 20:08
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kiwiland
Posts: 315
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
so.... going by that everyone would depart with full tanks????
goeasy is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 21:52
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not at all!!

Just be ready to think ahead.

There is not necessarily any "standard day"!
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2024, 21:58
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,534
Received 48 Likes on 30 Posts
Originally Posted by goeasy
so.... going by that everyone would depart with full tanks????
If everyone departed with maximum fuel consistent with landing weight limits there would be very few diversions or Mayday fuels. However the excess fuel used would be horrendous and seriously affect profitability.

If everyone departed with the minimum fuel legally required there would be many more diversions and Mayday fuels. The resulting disruptions would also seriously affect profitability, not to mention the safety issues.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, I’m convinced we’re too near the second option at the moment.
krismiler is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2024, 03:59
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: NAT-HLA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by krismiler
If everyone departed with maximum fuel consistent with landing weight limits there would be very few diversions or Mayday fuels. However the excess fuel used would be horrendous and seriously affect profitability.

If everyone departed with the minimum fuel legally required there would be many more diversions and Mayday fuels. The resulting disruptions would also seriously affect profitability, not to mention the safety issues.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, I’m convinced we’re too near the second option at the moment.
Ideally dispatch should calculate fuel with the longest trackmile option between dep and dest. Same should go for alternate planning. Secondly crew should be paid fuel saving bonus (taking minimum/less extra fuel bonus, perhaps?) without all the ranking bs some base captains can hold against certain pilots when time comes. That crap should be plain illegal, IMHO. Again, ideally, captains should be provided with all the data to make an educated fuel uplift decision based on their experience, route and local knowledge. Another thing comes to mind: policy between least fuel and possible time spent without seatbelt signs on should be clearly stated and communicated, eg.: what's more important saving some kilos enroute or cc being able to sell merch to pax - this only concerns LCC-s mostly, obviously. This latter can make or break a good day out for cc-s simply loosing out on their percentage bonuses from sales due to potentially choppy least fuel CRZ FL.
A321drvr is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2024, 07:20
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
What is a "standard day"?


I have experienced three occasions when the airport has been closed on a CAVOK day with light winds. On two occasions the aeroplane behind us had an incident closing the airfield and causing everyone else to divert. (Both were A320s, one went off the side of the runway to avoid an overrun, the other landed with the brakes on...! That should identify the airport!) and myself had to hold and very nearly divert when a light aircraft had gone off the runway, closing the airport. So don't think that diverts are 'only' weather related! And, as albatross has correctly said, you won't be the only one diverting so it might be worth considering where you divert to if there are other options. Also, I once had a weather divert (with plenty of fuel!) where our company asked us not to divert to our first diversion as the local team's 'away' football match meant that there were no busses for the pax.


Diverts can become very complex and what is a "standard day"!!
But you are talking about more or less freak events. Planning fuel uplift for these type of events on a daily basis is simply unprofessional and has nothing to do with safety. 9/11 happened, do we bring more, full, fuel now “just in case”?

So of course there are “standard days”, of course it’s not all weather related but we plan with the information we have, use our experience with airport X Y and Z to make decisions that are reasonable, professional, safe and financially sound. That’s our job.
You’re talking about events you would perhaps bring up with someone just reaching command, or perhaps new in to commercial aviation, to make them aware that things can happen. Keep your mind open, try to plan ahead when things are developing into something that’s no longer a “standard day”. If you get info that airport is closed, or runway blocked, take an early decision to divert, be proactive.

CP
CaptainProp is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2024, 07:48
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by A321drvr
Secondly crew should be paid fuel saving bonus (taking minimum/less extra fuel bonus, perhaps?) without all the ranking bs some base captains can hold against certain pilots when time comes.
Paying crew extra for taking less fuel is a sure fire way to encourage poor fuel planning decisions, and the results of such a policy would be an increase in low fuel incidents, and accidents.
deeceethree is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2024, 07:50
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by krismiler
If everyone departed with maximum fuel consistent with landing weight limits there would be very few diversions or Mayday fuels. However the excess fuel used would be horrendous and seriously affect profitability.

If everyone departed with the minimum fuel legally required there would be many more diversions and Mayday fuels. The resulting disruptions would also seriously affect profitability, not to mention the safety issues.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, I’m convinced we’re too near the second option at the moment.
Do not forget that taking off with max fuel also means a heavier, faster landing with more fuel which is a risk in itself.

Exceptional circumstances is exactly why there is a final reserve, but it needs to be investigated when it is used.
procede is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2024, 10:23
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: NAT-HLA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deeceethree
Paying crew extra for taking less fuel is a sure fire way to encourage poor fuel planning decisions, and the results of such a policy would be an increase in low fuel incidents, and accidents.
Presumably we're all professionals, so no, I disagree. Matter of fact I believe that financial incentive in one's fuel planning is a safer way to go than being bullied or pointed out on charts/statistics who is constantly landing with the most fuel - happens at a lot of places, unfortunately.
A321drvr is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.