Bit Tight on Fuel

[pelmet]

Is 400kg low for an E175. There would likely be plenty of landing locations enroute...

C-FRQM, an Embraer 175 operated by Jazz Aviation LP as flight JZA8878, was conducting a flight from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport (CYYZ), ON, to Newark Liberty International Airport (KEWR), NJ. The flight was planned with Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL), PA, as the alternate and included an additional 30 minutes of contingency fuel. While en route, thunderstorms developed and were moving toward the KEWR terminal area. Dispatch advised the flight crew that holding should be expected, and Air Traffic Control (ATC) subsequently issued a holding clearance. During the hold, the flight crew advised dispatch that the aircraft had 2300 kg of fuel remaining and discussed available options, including returning to CYYZ or continuing to hold before diverting to the planned alternate. Thunderstorm activity then developed in the vicinity of KPHL, making it unsuitable as an alternate. Dispatch began calculating a diversion to Boston Logan International Airport (KBOS), MA; however, the aircraft had already commenced a diversion toward CYYZ. While en route to CYYZ, the flight crew advised dispatch of the expected landing fuel, and dispatch provided revised fuel calculations for the diversion. On initial contact with Toronto ATC, the flight crew declared a fuel emergency and received priority sequencing for the arrival and approach. The aircraft landed without further incident and arrived at the gate with 400 kg of fuel remaining.


...From TSB

[Hangry]

400kg is insane. Unless all other options were unavailable a YYZ diversion is a terrible decision. Brutal

[digits_]

That CADOR makes it sound like Dispatch was in charge of the flight

[Hangry]

That CADOR makes it sound like Dispatch was in charge of the flight

Sounds like they were. Certainly wasn’t an effective CA.

[pelmet]

What about Buffalo and Rochester?

Does AC Regional have the approach plates and FMC data for such locations?

[Nauclerus]

A lot of unanswered questions here. I've never flown an E75S but the internet seems to indicate it burns around 1400-1500 kg/hour. So landing with 400 kg would be around 15 to 20 minutes. What was their FMS fuel prediction at destination when they decided to divert ? What did dispatch calculate their fuel on arrival would be in YYZ ? What was their fuel remaining overhead Buffalo ? Will the TSB conduct an investigation and issue a report ?

This seems to be the flight in question.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight ... /CYYZ/KEWR

Just as a note the TAF for EWR was totally out to lunch that day. The one issued at 1720Z had no mention of any thunderstorms.

TAF KEWR 151720Z 1518/1624 27015G23KT 6SM FU BKN250
TEMPO 1518/1520 5SM FU FM152000 28017G27KT 5SM FU BKN250
TEMPO 1520/1524 3SM FU FM160000 32011KT 6SM FU BKN250
TEMPO 1600/1604 4SM FU FM160400 31006KT 6SM FU BKN250
FM161500 28011G21KT 5SM FU BKN250

SPECI KEWR 152128Z 32019KT 1 3/4SM R04R/1800VP6000FT +TSRA BR FEW015 BKN045CB OVC080 26/24 A2987 RMK AO2 PK WND 36043/2111 WSHFT 2107 RAB06 TSB2058 FRQ LTGICCG OHD TS OHD MOV SE

[Hangry]

What about Buffalo and Rochester?

Does AC Regional have the approach plates and FMC data for such locations?

Of course. It’s not a Cessna 150

[digits_]

Is dispatch usually so heavily involved in an airborne plane's flight?
Assuming the info in the CADOR is correct of course.

[Nauclerus]

Is dispatch usually so heavily involved in an airborne plane's flight?

In a situation like this where the original plan is changing they should be, it's basic CRM, as PIC use all the tools at your disposal to make your decision and a good disptacher is an invaluable resource. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with the reported communications between the dispatcher and pilots here.

[Daniel Cooper]

Hopefully the new ATPL regs increase the command experience of young airline Captains, if they don't find a workaround.

[Eric Janson]

This went wrong right from the start - 30 minutes of extra fuel is not enough for a busy area like New York.

1 hour of extra should be the minimum. Then if adverse weather is forecast more fuel should be taken. 1 hour extra as a minimum.

The above is how I would plan my flight into New York.

KPHL may still be have been useable - depends where the weather is located relative to the approach/landing path.

Don't delay a diversion - divert early so you don't end up declaring an Emergency.

Too many companies operating with just the legally required fuel - just a matter of time until all the holes line up and an accident is the result.

Maybe I've been lucky but I have never heard a word about any extra fuel I've taken - as it should be.

The policy at my last company was to give a reason why extra fuel was uplifted. Simple.

If anyone other than the Captain decides on how much fuel to take then there is something very wrong operationally.

When I was FO a wise Captain told me "Fuel is a substitute for brains!" I've never forgotten those words.

[digits_]

When I was FO a wise Captain told me "Fuel is a substitute for brains!" I've never forgotten those words.

You take extra fuel because you lack brains

[rudder]

Is dispatch usually so heavily involved in an airborne plane's flight?

In a situation like this where the original plan is changing they should be, it's basic CRM, as PIC use all the tools at your disposal to make your decision and a good disptacher is an invaluable resource. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with the reported communications between the dispatcher and pilots here.

Once the aircraft leaves the gate, dispatch becomes a resource not a co-controlling authority. That is reflected in the Part 705 regulations as well as a Part 705 carrier operations manual.

Having said that, that resource should be used to the maximum extent possible when the PIC is making operational decisions. Some carriers still do not provide flight deck access to wifi which in this case would have given the flight crew an up-to-date area radar image (to supplement the on board radar information which is not as accurate) to assist in considering and executing a contingency plan based on real-time developments. Absent this access, radar information from dispatch becomes even more critical, in particular whether the route to the planned alternate is not also impeded by convective activity.

Dispatch may also be utilized as a resource to provide accurate time and fuel calculations for a diversion (which is what occurred here since the planned flight arrived at an airport other than the destination or planned alternate).

Any time a Part 705 flight declares an emergency, a flight crew report must be filed. Any time a Part 705 flight lands below minimum required fuel (in this case RSV fuel), a flight crew report must be filed. Since one and perhaps both occurred on this flight, a flight crew report will need to be submitted. That report will be analyzed by the carrier and most likely by TC.

Lots of moving parts on this one. The parties should be interested in factors contributing to decision making and outcome.

[rudder]

This went wrong right from the start - 30 minutes of extra fuel is not enough for a busy area like New York.

1 hour of extra should be the minimum. Then if adverse weather is forecast more fuel should be taken. 1 hour extra as a minimum.

The above is how I would plan my flight into New York.

KPHL may still be have been useable - depends where the weather is located relative to the approach/landing path.

Don't delay a diversion - divert early so you don't end up declaring an Emergency.

Too many companies operating with just the legally required fuel - just a matter of time until all the holes line up and an accident is the result.

Maybe I've been lucky but I have never heard a word about any extra fuel I've taken - as it should be.

The policy at my last company was to give a reason why extra fuel was uplifted. Simple.

If anyone other than the Captain decides on how much fuel to take then there is something very wrong operationally.

When I was FO a wise Captain told me "Fuel is a substitute for brains!" I've never forgotten those words.

In a perfect world, this would all be true.

However, many operators operate to regulatory minimum for fuel planning. This isn’t unsafe, it simply means that there is no incremental ability to deal with contingencies. If a 15 minute traffic delay hold en route to a VFR conditions high density airport results in a diversion to alternate, then that is an operational risk (not a safety risk) and expense/disruption that is being accepted by the operator.

Most operators with experience to high density airports know well enough that contingency fuel is more cost effective than diversion.

[pelmet]

The theory of one of the airlines that I have worked at(High safety ranking) was that the flights typically get dispatched with min fuel in accordance with their policies(which did have extra fuel for certain weather forecasts). Yes, the captain could take extra. But if the forecast showed good weather up until five minutes after schedule arrival time, the forecast was for good weather. The theory was that an occasional diversion was acceptable as the amount burned on that flight was less than the sum of smaller amounts saved on all the other flights.

No extra fuel was really required on this particular flight from a safety point of view. They had plenty of alternate airports. It was just the decision made by the captain to bypass some good ones to get back to a convenient location.

[jpilot77]

There’s a lot of big airports around the NYC area that may have been clear of weather and are definitely big enough airports that an E175 could use. KSWF 44nm north, KHPN 27nm to the north east, KBDL 98 nm to the north east, KALB 120 nm to the north, KSYR 166nm to the north west. These are all AC alternates for the NYC area. Plus like others have said why fly past KROC and KBUF with so little fuel just to go back to YYZ.

[Eric Janson]

When I was FO a wise Captain told me "Fuel is a substitute for brains!" I've never forgotten those words.

You take extra fuel because you lack brains

It means don't try to be clever - the job is already hard enough.

Extra fuel = extra time. Rushing increases the chances of mistakes. I hate rushing.

I've spent a lot of time operating in some of the remotest areas on the planet - probably why I'm very conservative with fuel.

Remember this is an Incident - only one step below an accident.

As Captain you are legally responsible - not Dispatch or anybody else.

My experience is that office staff are very good at shifting blame when it all goes wrong...

I see that reduced experience was mentioned - that may also be true at Dispatch.

My company had a lot of office staff leave after COVID - that experience can't be replaced overnight. I've seen a lot more mistakes in the documentation after COVID.

[Dronepiper]

Sure, the Captain is "legally responsible," but the FO shares the responsibility also. At the end of the day, if they run out of fuel and crash, the FO dies too. If you don't think you took enough fuel, then as FO you can also refuse to fly until you upload more fuel. Captain can't take off single pilot.

[digits_]

Sure, the Captain is "legally responsible," but the FO shares the responsibility also. At the end of the day, if they run out of fuel and crash, the FO dies too. If you don't think you took enough fuel, then as FO you can also refuse to fly until you upload more fuel. Captain can't take off single pilot.

The issue doesn't seem to be they didn't take enough fuel. The issue seems to be they overflew suitable landing spots to make it back home. The FO can't get out of the plane mid flight.

[Eric Janson]

This was the issue:-

On initial contact with Toronto ATC, the flight crew declared a fuel emergency and received priority sequencing for the arrival and approach.

[Scoob]

Hopefully the new ATPL regs increase the command experience of young airline Captains, if they don't find a workaround.

Has nothing to do with it. This incident involved a well experienced captain and one of the most senior FOs. This was a stupidity problem, not an experience problem.

[Scoob]

400kgs is about 20 minutes of gas. Below 300 on each side (600 total) you’ll get Fuel 1(2) Low Level Warnings.

The FMS fuel predictions are extremely accurate. Destination fuel remaining is right in front of your face the entire time. Upon loading the route they would have received a Check Reserve Fuel message. Any time they changed the cruise altitude, or speed, or any other performance parameter the message would have reappeared on the scratchpad. I cannot fathom how it got to this point.

[rudder]

This was the issue:-

On initial contact with Toronto ATC, the flight crew declared a fuel emergency and received priority sequencing for the arrival and approach.

Perhaps less of an ‘issue’ than a ‘consequence’. An operational decision was made and at some point it was acknowledged (via the FMS) that estimated fuel on landing at YYZ would be low. Certainly below RSV fuel. One can only wonder at what point that was identified. No fuel for airborne delay. It may be the case even not enough fuel for a go-around and return (gate arrival fuel was just 400kg according to the CADORS).

FUEL 1(or 2) LO LVL EICAS msg appears at 300kg per tank. If touchdown fuel was <500 kg total, then likely one or both messages were displayed.

Flights at high density airports can end up in a fuel critical situation due to circumstances beyond their control. The ‘issue’ here will be whether the fact that the crew landed below RSV fuel (and in fact below emergency fuel) was within their control.

[Nauclerus]

The FMS fuel predictions are extremely accurate.

They had about a 70 knot headwind compenent on the return to YYZ. Is there a scenario where the FMS might not have had accurate wind data loaded after they had re-programed the diversion ?

[digits_]

The ‘issue’ here will be whether the fact that the crew landed below RSV fuel (and in fact below emergency fuel) was within their control.

With the information currently known, is there even a remotely likely scenario that would put this outside of their control?