|
Seems like most airlines have well known individuals who like to skimp on fuel. At a previous airline worked with a guy nicknamed “Skuba”. Seemed to think they were air tanks rather than fuel tanks. |
I fail to understand these so called “captains” that never elect to apply common sense and airmanship to the computed piece of paper’s fuel plan. are they on a secret bonus scheme that rewards this mentality? I was shown a picture of the gauges by an FO of landing below the 30 min final reserve, no mayday call, no minimum fuel call..the fo said he knew something was wrong but was unable to verbalise it pr comprehend it being fresh out of training... In answer to an above posters question, yes Ryr still publishes statistics for the skippers fuel burn, and has just recently started to write letters to captains asking them to explain their “over burn” on selected routes with an invitation to Dublin...how does the IAA still sit by and do nothing..... |
Cause is stated as running out of fuel. |
I once experienced the opposite: after I released the new captain, he became very company-minded. There was a (minimum) flight plan fuel reward “system” in place....which he was “rewarded” for..... Than, 1 day, surprise, too long at the holding point and got below min required. He went back to stand, refueled and departed with more than 1 hour delay. And flight time was around 2 hours, destination 2 separate runways with severe CAVOK conditions. The guy was an ex military Eastern Europe bloke, changing to the civilian world.....😴😳 |
Originally Posted by CW247
(Post 10584721)
Uhh we don't fly by gauges. In transport aviation, there's something called a flight plan which has a computed flight time endurance which equates to a fuel quantity required. Before the flight, we refuel and write the fuel uploaded down into the tech log and perform a sense check to determine we have indeed uploaded the expected fuel. Along the way way, we perform fuel checks to ensure there are no leaks or unexpected burn due to faulty engine parts. Equally, too much (excess) fuel is a sign something (maybe the gauge?) is wrong too. If we are nearing 30 mins flight time remaining (again according to the fuel checks, not the gauges), we issue a Mayday! There really isn't any excuse. This is going to turn out to be South American machismo on display again.
|
Originally Posted by testpanel
(Post 10586482)
I once experienced the opposite: after I released the new captain, he became very company-minded. There was a (minimum) flight plan fuel reward “system” in place....which he was “rewarded” for..... Than, 1 day, surprise, too long at the holding point and got below min required. He went back to stand, refueled and departed with more than 1 hour delay. And flight time was around 2 hours, destination 2 separate runways with severe CAVOK conditions. The guy was an ex military Eastern Europe bloke, changing to the civilian world.....😴😳 I find the idea that you can legally burn off CONT and ALTN fuel before actually taking off (EU rules, correct?) rather unsettling. Always hoped I'd be wrong in this respect, perhaps here's where I find out. Anyways, 1x not a bad decision after a string of 3 that had been. Pitty your employer then decided to not afford civilized pilots with proper roots. |
One of the most useless things in aviation : the fuel you left behind.
|
Story a little further up the page about an Antonov with just not enough fuel....
|
This is a pet hate of mine too. Taking barely enough fuel is just stupid and irresponsible. We are supposed to be safety conscious ! Do these idiots also drain the hydraulic systems down to minimum legal quantity for dispatch? Ditto Engine oil. Ditto CSU oil, ditto APU oil? - well it all weighs something and we have to carry extra fuel to carry the weight of those oils. Do they do the same in their own cars? I heard of one prize tw@t in a previous airline who came back to the UK where SNOWTAMS had been issued; with PLOG +300kg, (A320/321). Another prize tw@t in another previous airline, well known for taking absolute minimum fuel wherever he went; decided to take just enough fuel for Guernsey. He couldn’t get in - twice - and just made it into Jersey before the weather clamped down there as well. When he was on stand and had shut down, his hands were trembling. Idiot. Irresponsible idiot |
Originally Posted by motley flight crue
(Post 10584782)
Yes, Concorde has a close shave in LHR in 1988. Landed with 25 mins fuel. Captain Brian Walpole, the poster boy for Concorde was grounded permanently by BA. they said he should have diverted to Shannon after a hydraulic problem.
|
Originally Posted by motley flight crue
(Post 10584782)
Yes, Concorde has a close shave in LHR in 1988. Landed with 25 mins fuel. Captain Brian Walpole, the poster boy for Concorde was grounded permanently by BA. they said he should have diverted to Shannon after a hydraulic problem.
|
Originally Posted by gearlever
(Post 10584789)
Just read his Bio on wiki.
What a sad end for such a great career..... 5 min.... Ouch That does seem a bit harsh. Wonder if there’s more to his career story that caused his grounding beyond 5 minutes of fuel? Mentions he flew in the RAF but only spent 4 years in. Was that normal for the RAF in those days? Doesn’t seem like a lot of return on investment. |
25 minutes of fuel remaining? The aircraft was towed from a taxiway to the Concorde stand at Terminal 4.
|
Originally Posted by Trebar
(Post 10590174)
25 minutes of fuel remaining? The aircraft was towed from a taxiway to the Concorde stand at Terminal 4.
|
Sometime in the mid 1970s a PanAM 747 spent way too much time holding to get into JFK. He then diverted to EWR. Due to the complex traffic system in the New York area this 15 nm distance was extended to over 100 miles. Approaching EWR from the SW to land to the SW an engine flamed out. When the second engine flamed out they decided to land downwind to the NE and were cleared to do so. On approach the third engine flamed out. The fourth engine continued to run until he cleared the runway at the end, then flamed out.
When I taxied out shortly afterwards the plane still had not been towed in and it was truly an overwhelming sight. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10590401)
Perhaps the amount was 0.25 minutes of fuel remaining??
|
Walpole
Lot more to it.
BA saw sense after a posse of first officers went to the top. Dont think anyone shed a tear. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10587879)
I'd read someplace that Concorde got precleared to land at JFK at departure, because there was so little extra endurance, allegedly less than half an hour on arrival in New York. Is that an urban myth?
Concorde may have had a more tightly scheduled "arrival window" for other special needs, though. |
Originally Posted by blind pew
(Post 10591643)
Lot more to it.
BA saw sense after a posse of first officers went to the top. Dont think anyone shed a tear. |
Originally Posted by Trebar
(Post 10590174)
25 minutes of fuel remaining? The aircraft was towed from a taxiway to the Concorde stand at Terminal 4.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.