Bingo1, Bingo2 or chicken ?

After reading some input from Boeing guys.....Jumping the gun seems like just what it is.

Someone was saying something along the lines "I carry more to land with at least 1800 kg, thats airmanship" I can only agree, IF CNR is 1800. If CNR is lower and there is no specific reason to carry more, I'll carry enough to land with CNR.
However, maybe they carried fuel to land with 2000 kg, what do we know? Plan for landing with 2000, get a lower flight level then planned, arr at hold with 1700, get EAT 30 min away, nice weather, lots of runways, decide to stay in hold and use alt fuel since landing is assured. If plan does not work, request priority and land. Fair enough?

Changing the 'LOW' setting guys - does that mean that the QRH is now only actioned at 453kg or do you still do it at 907kg?

In the Ryanair NG's the fuel low warning will pop up if the main tanks have less than 453 kg's (or 1000lbs) in either tank.

Also Ryanair policy is to plan your flight not to arrive with less than 2000 kg's of fuel remaining so they should never have less than 2000 kg's of alternate fuel when arriving at their destination.


Seems a bit of a risk with only one runway though doesn't it? Sure one MCC instructor once told me "meh, if worst comes to worst you can always land on the taxiway" :}

wo ping, if this happened three times in the last two weeks to you, maybe from now on you should expect this;-)

Our fleet in FR is also modified to the 453kg low fuel warning.
Interesting is that no FR flight is planned to land at Dest with less than 2000kg
So even when diversion fuel would be 600kg, this would normally be increased to around 1100kg on our flightplan.
So 1100kg plus the 30min would end up with more than 2000kg on any flight.
What I hear from other guys here that's quite a lot.
Lorel

Im waiting for the facts to emerge. They may have landed with that amount of fuel but thats not to say its due to crew irresponsibility. There are any number of reasons out of the crews' hands that could lead to that situation. What would be bad would be if it transpired that there was no mayday.

What's the fuel burn like on the 737 when taxiing? If there was a long distance and/or delays on the way to stand, that might account for some of it. I've been below CMR in the tech. log when landing with planned remainder at LHR, JFK, etc. even with an engine shut down when possible.

BOAC
 

QRH is actioned when the LOW warning comes on, which will be at 453kg.

As mentioned before, the 907 figure is an ETOPS requirement.

Thank you 5150 - as I thought, and that trips my 'logic' CB!:confused: The drill is for 'Low Fuel State' (for pump cover etc) and if 907kg is considered 'low'......................? Pumps will risk being 'unconvered' whether you are ETOPS or not - they don't know:). Personally I look at 1000kg to action. Nice ROUND figure.

RTO
 

"Landing at destination without alternate requires 30min holding fuel+15min

1800Kgs should be spot on for the NG"

That depends on what type of NG you are flying and the weight. On a not so heavy 700, the figure is around 1400-1500 kg's.

Quite a few of the FR bases publish a fuel league, and you will often see the base cpt at the top end of that league… quite a few of those base cpt are line trainers; ie not always flying the most fuel efficient profiles (for training reasons)… so they must be doing something just a bit better than the rest of the FR drivers !!!:E

Then there is the fuel leaflet from the DCP handed out 2 weeks ago at STN, it apparently now has spread to other bases…:ouch:

All that said, I am sure FR do not want their drivers landing with less than 1136 kgs (total) in the tanks… (Apparently airport elevation at HHN will make the 1136 kgs. number slightly different according to the DCP) anyone appreciate the irony of the statement !:oh:

But still no back info on 800 kgs. actually happened!!! :rolleyes:

heard this rumour over a month ago...although the rumour was 900 kilos

think it went something like.... plog fuel to iffy weather airport, tailwind componet putting ac out of limits by 1 knot when on approach followed by diversion to non precision airport again with iffy weather..followed by another go around...followed eventually by a landing

but thats all rumour

Question is....
 

Boys, girls & uncle dickie

Don’t mix JAR-OPS fuel requirements and B737NG limitations and non-normal operations!!!

I don’t care about their alternate fuel and final reserve fuel now; I was just talking about QRH.

QRH NNC 12.9

MAIN TANK FUEL PUMP switches.......All ON
CROSSFEED selector.......................Open

Apply thrust changes slowly and smoothly.
If a climb is needed, maintain the minimus pitch attitude needed for safe flight.

END of QRH

The question is: “Is it legal to plan a flight with FR+Alt. F. less than 1800Kg?”

Imagine yourself diverting. You have a lot of staff to care about and as a bonus do the NNC and take care about pitch attitude, slow acceleration and so on. HAHA

That's all! Fly safe!

- which is why I never accepted BA's policy of 'committing' to LGW (single runway) using LHR as the 'second' runway/s, and thus being encouraged to linger at LGW down to 1100kg ish (final reserve 734) until the runway blocked with a tyre burst on take-off ahead of you.:ugh:

A lot of the BA brainwashed cadet co-pilots thought it a good idea................

A hero lives for ever
 

JAR Ops allows 2 approaches and then diversion.

Is 2 classified as "several"?

I think not!

On that basis, isn't that what reserve fuel is about, he clearly landing with sufficient fuel. You could ask whether the poor weather at destination and alternate were forecast and if so should he have carried more fuel? But that is what pilots are paid their money for, even in Ryanair.

JAR OPS the Captains Bible
 

The greatest threat to aviation safety are pilots with the brain of a lawyer. They think reality is written down in the books, it’s a bit like religious fanatics.


Below 30 min you have to declare at least a PAN........he didn't

Forecasted Wx is irrelevant in this case. At TOD you have a clear picture of what your options are.

2 minor items...........

flying headbutt got his/her lbs/kgs conversion a little confused .
453 kgs = 1000 lbs and 907kgs = 2000lbs , and not 500 /1000 lbs .

BOAC is probably correct to assume that all NGs leave the factory ' NG capable' but in case there are any readers not familiar with ETOPS requirements I would like to point out that some NGs only have 1 FMC fitted and are therefore not ETOPS capable.

Keep safe