|
Just enough fuel?
Apparently an ATR 72 in Brazil had one engine fail on approach and the other on roll out possibly due to fuel starvation.
Incident: MAP AT72 at Manaus and Itaituba on Sep 16th 2019, engine failure in flight, other engine fails after touch down MAP Linhas Aereas Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72-200, registration PR-MPY performing flight PAM-5913 from Itaituba,PA to Manaus,AM (Brazil) with 39 passengers and 4 crew, departed Itaituba for the about 260nm trip to Manaus. While enroute another aircraft caused Manaus Airport to close forcing the crew to return the aircraft back to Itaituba. While on final approach to Itaituba the left hand engine failed, after touch down at Itaituba the right hand engine failed, too. Brazil's CENIPA reported the crew was able to restart the right hand engine and taxied the aircraft to the apron. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft. The occurrence, classified as "out of fuel" and rated a serious incident, is being investigated by CENIPA (editorial note: the initial note does not say anything about fuel remaining on board). |
Safely arm's length from the offending pilots the "management" pat themselves on the back for from an accounting perspective, the fuel paid for by the company met the requirements....just
|
starvation or exhaustion?...
|
Some years ago before retirement, my management 'encouraged' plog fuel. One day I got back after a flight to see the fleet manager filling in a report to explain why he had shut down with less than the required minimum fuel. In conversation he said to me;
'who would have thought I would have had to fly the hold for so long at this time of day on a Saturday?' My reply was me. I expected to hold, and indeed had carried some extra fuel on that day to do just that. I said that I made decisions based on the experience of flying 4 or 5 times a week, as opposed to flying a desk and only arriving at an aeroplane in order to keep currency. I may add that I was way up the seniority list with months to got to retirement! |
or an ATR42 gauge installed on a 72. it happened before .( Tuniter Sicily 2005)
|
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 10584618)
or an ATR42 gauge installed on a 72. it happened before .( Tuniter Sicily 2005)
|
Staircase, you & a mate of mine probably worked for the same Cowboy outfit. Running out of fuel after landing was considered to be "allowable" under fuel planning criteria.
|
Didn’t Concorde have a close shave once landing at LHR? |
or an ATR42 gauge installed on a 72. it happened before .( Tuniter Sicily 2005) |
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.
|
And Swissair ditched in the channel after running out of fuel.
IIRC Ice hockey match on TV in Geneva that everyone was watching which led to a made dash to make schedule which hadnt been refuelled.
Crew survived ( company requirement to be able to swim). Some Pax drowned as no life jackets. Then there was the BEA Airtours 707 taxying in when a big red light illuminated " I say john whats that light for?" P3 "coz tge f##king motors stopped sir" 1970s. Concorde incident lead to a permanent retirement. |
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.
What a sad end for such a great career..... 5 min.... Ouch |
Originally Posted by CW247
(Post 10584721)
Uhh we don't fly by gauges. In transport aviation, (.....) There really isn't any excuse. This is going to turn out to be South American machismo on display again.
|
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10584385)
Safely arm's length from the offending pilots the "management" pat themselves on the back for from an accounting perspective, the fuel paid for by the company met the requirements....just
|
Do Ryanair still email those Captains (top 25%) monthly who take “too much” fuel. |
Originally Posted by parkfell
(Post 10585049)
Do Ryanair still email those Captains (top 25%) monthly who take “too much” fuel. Are you joking? |
Originally Posted by parkfell
(Post 10585049)
Do Ryanair still email those Captains (top 25%) monthly who take “too much” fuel. Qantas "document" fuel carriage by pilots. Pilots can see their "performance" on an app. Naturally, the airline would never suggest less than needed, but fuel is one of the criteria "monitored" One of the idiot office creeps was less than affectionately known as Scud: Always launch never sure where he would land. Carrying the "company recommended" legal requirement won him favour of management, not so much of the poor souls forced to endure unscheduled night stops.... Fortunately for all that idiot is apparently a Deputy Chief Pilot. Much safer to sit at a desk |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10585066)
Not only Ryan air.
Qantas "document" fuel carriage by pilots. Pilots can see their "performance" on an app. Naturally, the airline would never suggest less than needed, but fuel is one of the criteria "monitored" One of the idiot office creeps was less than affectionately known as Scud: Always launch never sure where he would land. Carrying the "company recommended" legal requirement won him favour of management, not so much of the poor souls forced to endure unscheduled night stops.... Fortunately for all that idiot is apparently a Deputy Chief Pilot. Much safer to sit at a desk Peter principle |
Scud wasn't the only one either. Years ago we had a line Cpt known as vapors.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.