Too close for comfort - easyJet lands with 18m fuel

[atakacs]

A320 LFMN-LSGG double divert and eventual emergency landing in Zurich.


Flight track


AV Herald link (hope not an issue?)

[albatross]

Two diversions and an emergency landing.
How much fuel do you think they should have carried?

[atakacs]

No blaming anyone (certainly not my place) - just reporting on the incident.

I also note that they were the only to divert on that evening (the next one slotted behind them landed). Again reporting.

[Mr Albert Ross]

Having landed at all of those airports, I can understand the problems with that weather.

The fact that the one behind landed is very often irrelevant. More than once I have landed when the one ahead of me went around, nothing other than the 'luck of the draw' with us getting the fortunate lull in the wind gusts or patch of cloud moving away. I have also had a wind-shear go-around when the one directly before me had landed. Who was able to do what and when in conditions like that is not a valid comparison.

Well done to those pilots for the decisions that they made that day that eventually got them safely on the ground. One of those days when "company minimum fuel" is not necessarily a good idea.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by atakacs

No blaming anyone (certainly not my place) - just reporting on the incident.

I also note that they were the only to divert on that evening (the next one slotted behind them landed). Again reporting.

Did you mean to say they 'weren't' the only flight to divert? I believe the EasyJet CH flight from Sevilla to Geneva diverted to Lyon that evening as did a NetJets flight.

[Gordomac]

Albert : Try taking more than Company min fuel, for any reason, has been, for decades,, in certain companies,tthe reason for tea & Bicks with the CP. Since the early nineties, you would have to bring your own bourbons too.

With one outfit, as it happens on Standards check with CP, it looked like very low fuel state might lead to diversion. CP tried pursuading me, after I commented that continuing might mean. us having insufficient fuel to taxi after landing, with the comment ;"you do know that is not illegal ?) I diverted for more fuel and a short while later swopped my Lone Ranger Outfit for a proper airline uniform.

Looks like eazie had enough for what he did and carried a bit more for fowl weather anyway. Uncontrollable flatulence on the FD after landing though;-no doubt.

[Flipster130]

CVR must have been interesting to listen to

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by atakacs

A320 LFMN-LSGG double divert and eventual emergency landing in Zurich.


Flight track


AV Herald link (hope not an issue?)

"The crew declared emergency being low on fuel and decided to divert to Zurich advising Zurich ATC they had only 18 minutes of fuel left. The aircraft touched down on Zurich's runway 14 about 13 minutes after the go around in Basel" That would suggest they landed with about 5 minutes.

[beamer]

Never had a problem taking extra fuel when I/we thought it prudent - simply had to put down the reason on the Ops return.

[Herod]

Many years ago, a friend was in for the annual assessment. It was noted that he had fewer days sick, but also that he generally took more fuel than most. "Yep; more fuel, less stress. Less stress, fewer days sick" Can't argue with the logic of that.

[Sailvi767]

Well the last thousand lbs burns the same as the first thousand lbs!

[3Greens]

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

Well the last thousand lbs burns the same as the first thousand lbs!

well the rate of fuel burn is a bit different

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Herod

Many years ago, a friend was in for the annual assessment. It was noted that he had fewer days sick, but also that he generally took more fuel than most. "Yep; more fuel, less stress. Less stress, fewer days sick"

Can't argue with the logic of that.

A bean-counter probably would.

[Doors to Automatic]

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

[NoelEvans]

Originally Posted by Herod

Many years ago, a friend was in for the annual assessment. It was noted that he had fewer days sick, but also that he generally took more fuel than most. "Yep; more fuel, less stress. Less stress, fewer days sick" Can't argue with the logic of that.

Similar to a discussion that I heard in an airport hotel at LHR several years back. A discussion about 'minimum fuel' had moved on to personal fitness and 'using up' heartbeats with exercise. One of the captains brought this back to 'minimum fuel' by saying "That is why I carry extra fuel, I want to be going around the hold with a nice slow pulse rate"!!

Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

Who cares about the relatively small effect on fuel burn on a day like that when the safety of the aeroplane is improved with that extra fuel. Are you one of those 'bean counters' who knows nothing about the real world??

I had a wind-shear go around once -- at my diversion airfield. I was sooo pleased that my fuel planning that day had been to arrive at my original destination at max landing weight so that in the unlikely event that we could land our weight permitted, but in the likely event that we were going to divert, on a really windy day we would have a comfortable fuel amount. I was very pleased to be able to make another relaxed approach after that unexpected wind-shear go around (and so were our cabin crew and full load of passengers!). Who cares about the 'extra' fuel burn. That is a tiny cost compared with running out of fuel.

Well done to that crew for arriving safely in Zurich. I hope that their future attitude to fuel planning and the bean-counters 'it is legal' nonsense has altered significantly and that they pass that on to others. Safety comes before any bean-counter misery.

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

It depends on the overall aircraft weight on the day, and the sector distance, amongst other things, but from memory, an A320 on a typical European sector would generally burn an extra ~ 100kg of fuel for every extra tonne of fuel loaded above PLOG fuel.

[CaptainProp]

Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

There are many factors but as a rough guideline you’ll burn 3% of discretionary fuel per hour it’s carried. 2 hour flight, burn 6% of carried fuel, 4 hours, burn 12% etc.

CP

[WelshGeorge]

Ouch, that’s tight ….

[Right20deg]

An example of "proper low fuel state".... is the worlds favourite Concorde arrival at LHR a while back, requiring a dash down the steps to the refuel bowser el pronto to stick on a few tons. Refueler could not believe where the needles were and the rest is history. Happy days. I forget how many engines flamed out on the taxiway.

[Matey]

Originally Posted by Right20deg

An example of "proper low fuel state".... is the worlds favourite Concorde arrival at LHR a while back, requiring a dash down the steps to the refuel bowser el pronto to stick on a few tons. Refueler could not believe where the needles were and the rest is history. Happy days. I forget how many engines flamed out on the taxiway.

Wasnt the operating Captain the Concorde Fleet Manager if I remember correctly?