|
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.
|
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 13:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.