Pilots say they feel pressure to cut back on fuel

[SRV]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/16/pilots.fuel/index.html

Is management going to hold the Captain liable for unsafe practices if the crap hits the fan!

[small penguin]

Im not an airline pilot, but Im siding with the airline rather than the complaining Captains. If they really feel that having a 45minute +10 to 15 extra is flying safer, something is wrong in their mentality. I doubt highly that 10 minutes of extra gas (on top of the 45minute cruise reserve) is going to make much of a difference from a safety point. Then again, Im not sure what difference it would make on fuel consumption either (anyone care to answer that?)

[Cat Driver]

Then again, Im not sure what difference it would make on fuel consumption either (anyone care to answer that?)

If you don't know anything about the issue HTF can you choose sides?

[small penguin]

Simple: List me how many flights have been saved because they had an extra 10 minutes of fuel.
Then, given the same time frame, list me how many flights have occurred.

To me that says the pilots are being twats about it. But at the same time, without knowing how much fuel is being saved from the airline demand, I cant say I completely agree with them either. That being said, with both options being 50/50 in my mind, I have to agree (given the info provided in the news article) with the airline. They are simply telling pilots: Take what you need for the trip, plus 45, as is the legal requirement. I see no reason for the pilot to want more. If taking the legal requirement which (see my first two lines) likely hasnt made any significant differences to air travel, why should the pilots say they dont feel safe?

If they dont feel safe flying a bus 30,000 feet in the air with 45 minutes of fuel extra from what they need.... Kinda makes you wonder.

/2cents

[daveg]

What about deviations around enroute thunderstorms that were unforseen? What about long taxi delays? Flow delays? That 45min reserve starts to get depleted very quickly. Then you are faced with turning back to the gate for more fuel before you even leave the ground. How do you think the pax would like that one. I think the pilots should start turning the planes around on the ground to make a protest if they get the MIN fuel.

A good practice would be to take what the pilot is asking for and what the dispatcher would like, and take the most conservative.

[small penguin]

daveg, I agree delays, weather, etc, can use up fuel. I'd be curious though as to the difference in fuel burn while taxing to that of cruise. My little one burns about 5.5 to 6 gph, but on the ground, from what I can figure, its about 2-3. So my (in my case) 30 minute cruise reserve would last (theoretically) double on the ground.

That being said, I'd still like to see stats on this. If pilots and airlines can both see that 45 minutes reserve is not enough, then perhaps the rules should be changed.

Else, I say shut it, fly with 45 mins, and if you have to divert, due to lack of fuel, do so. I bet the airline will probably back off at that point.

[Tiny Voices]

Well Small Penguin, if you ever do become an airline pilot, you may just change your tune about that extra 15 minutes of fuel. Often times dispatch will give you and additional margin for weather or flow or other contingency ( that extra 15 mins in question ), on top of the fuel required. And often times we still get the fueler to sneak on an extra 500lbs ( approx. 6 mins on the type i'm flying ). May be the difference between carrying on safely to destination or a diversion or a fuel emergency.

[HavaJava]

Pilots are risk managers and I think most airline pilots like to accept as little risk as possible (I know I am willing to accept a hell of a lot less now than when I was flying single engines).

The minimum fuel requirements at my company are:
- To fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, then fly to the alternate aerodrome and hold for 30 minutes
or
- For No Alternate IFR, to fly to and execute an approach and a missed approach at the destination aerodrome, and then hold for 30 minutes.

So far I have found these to be sufficient guidelines and I've always found that our dispatch boards sufficient fuel for contigencies well before the Captain would have to intervene. That being said, I have arrived at destination with only enough fuel for one approach before we'd have to "bug-out" to our alternate and still remain within our legal fuel window. Most people would say "No problem! This is a black and white decision" however this is where a further clause in our FOM comes into play. It says:

"Alternate fuel may be consumed when, in the Captain's best judgement, the aircraft can be landed safely at the destination airport. [it goes on to give a some factors to consider]"

This is an interesting clause to have...the decision to go to the alternate is not so Black and White anymore! Now the Captain risks being questioned about his/her decision to go to an alternate (which costs the company money) when he/she probably could have landed at the destination. And if the Captain does decide to do another approach and eat into the alternate fuel he/she has just accepted a certain amount of risk to the flight. Thankfully, this scenario does not happen often and I am confident that my company would stand behind it's Captain's decision. The point I'm trying to get across is that sometimes these fuel decisions are not as black and white as the regulations may make them out to be.

*Edited for Gender correctness*

[rigpiggy]

Maybe if AF358 had carried more granny fuel, he wouldn't have felt pressured to make the approach?

[Johnny767]

Small Penguin:

Since you do not have a clue, of what you speak, maybe you should go find a different forum.

It is the "Captains" decision! ..end of story.

He/She is the one sitting at 30+ thousand feet, in an office moving a 80% the speed of sound.

While the Dispatcher sips on their coffee, in a nice warm office, with their feet firmly on the ground.

Stick to a subject you know something about.

[SRV]

The final responsibility for the flight rests with the Captain. If management starts meddling with the authority of the Captain and gets away with it, where will it end?

The company says the 1 day training wasn't punitive, yeah right...now it's on record and the pilot is walking on thin ice. What if no one complained and there was a major accident...who's at fault, who else PILOT ERROR

[Hedley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52

[C-MNOP]

Small Pen.......

One flight that was saved and many lives were saved with ten minutes of extra fuel when an A330 had to do an emergency landing the the Azores. We all know the story but maybe you should become familiar with it because without that ten minutes of "EXTRA" fuel there would have been over 200 lives lost. Thank god they had that 10 min of fuel.


It is a safety margin and passengers lives and the safety of the crew WILL ALWAYS BE MY FIRST CONCERN!!!

Your an idiot!!!!

[Cat Driver]

Your an idiot!!!!

Sometimes it is difficult to determine where ignorant ends and idiot starts.

[_dwj_]

Even in my little plane, I never take off for a long flight without having at least 1 hour of fuel in reserve, and that's flying VFR in nice weather.

You just don't know what is going to happen - the more fuel you have the better. How much extra is going to cost you to tanker 10 minutes of fuel that could potentially save your life?

45 mins isn't a great deal of reserve when the shit really hits the fan, so I'm on the pilot's side here.

And to answer the original question: yes, of course the pilot will be held accountable if he runs out of gas!

[200hr Wonder]

10min of extra fuel may give you enough extra to hold for 10min till a cell passes and you can then shoot an approach to mins and land. Rather then getting there and not shooting it at all because you do not have the reserves and the cell is just too damn big. Remember kids you are not suppose to go into your 45min fuel reserves, and holding to try and shoot an approach that may or may not work is not a good reason! Now int he scenario above do you think the boss would be happy you took the extra 10 of fuel?

[small penguin]

One flight that was saved and many lives were saved with ten minutes of extra fuel when an A330 had to do an emergency landing the the Azores. We all know the story but maybe you should become familiar with it because without that ten minutes of "EXTRA" fuel there would have been over 200 lives lost. Thank god they had that 10 min of fuel.

Im familiar with that incident. Im also aware that incident was directly caused by a mechanic, and that pure luck first and foremost and secondly, pilot FLYING skill saved the plane. Im also aware that poor pilot PDM caused the plane to run out much sooner than it could have. (see, ATPL pilots DO think they're smarter than a computer!)

So sure, that "extra 10 minutes" saved the plane. Because they pilots thought they were smarter than the computer.

Attribute it to what you want, lack of information given to the pilots (like a 'Hey buddy, Im pumping twice as much fuel as the engine can handle' on their displays), lack of pilot training, pilot being dumb, or anything else.

Had the plane not been diverted south, the "10 minutes" wouldnt have saved the plane Im willing to bet.
Had the pilots closed cross-feed instead of saying "computer error" the "10 minutes" of fuel wouldnt much have changed the outcome.
Had the mechanic not put in the wrong part, the problem would have been averted altogether!

And did this flight even have that "extra 10 minutes" anyways?



As for Hedley's link... Thanks. But this paragraph kinda struck something:

On January 25, 1990, Avianca Flight 52 had been in a holding pattern over New York for over one hour due to fog limiting arrivals and departures into John F. Kennedy International Airport. During this hold, the aircraft was exhausting its reserve fuel supply which would have allowed it to divert to its alternate, Boston, in case of an emergency or situation such as this one.

I've got to attribute that one to bad PDM.

Just like a few days ago, there was a debate on go-arounds, pilots making less than stellar approaches in marginal conditions, it seems those same pilots also dont want to divert.

*shrugs*

But yea, Im an idiot. If that tickles your fancy. Didnt know you had to better yourself by bringing others down

_dwj_ I always take a full tank when I fly regardless of if Im doing a 15 minute tour, or a 2 hour cross-country (on 3.5hrs total). But thats the difference from the commercial world, to the GA world.

[C-MNOP]

Small Pen.....

Everybody makes mistakes and thats a fact of life. Even in the airline world every crew has to make decisions and reactions on the information they are given at any given time. That is why there are two crew and CRM. Nobody is perfect and in any situation there are many factors to be considered and the PIC has to make his best decision possible. Sometimes they are not the right one but most times they are. Im not going to argue the demands or skills of pilots but you asked about the fuel situation. The fact is fuel in the tank is a safety concern.

During and emergency like the ol' saying goes its better to have more runway infront of you, more fuel in the tanks, and more sky below you.

The most dangerous thing in an airplane is an ignorant pilot.

[small penguin]

Im certainly not arguing more is better.

I suppose I should have re-phrased. (and still waiting for that initial question) Removing that "extra 10 minutes" of fuel on ... say a 737 (since they are fairly dominant out there from what I can tell) and keeping to the minimum... How much more efficient is it?

If the savings are so minimal as to barely make a difference even when timed thousands of flights per year... then ok, I can side with the pilots. But if that "extra 10 minutes" does save the airline a noticeable sum of money... then perhaps pilots should adapt. Either that, or admit they no longer accept the level of risk, and quit. Hey, maybe they'd be safer on the roads.

I cant even imagine how stressful a flight deck could become (though I wish I could experience it), but in the example Hedley provided where yes, an extra 10 minutes of fuel would have saved the plane, the crew were incredibly idiotic. You dont circle an airport on fumes hoping the weather will cooperate, and the stress of the situation wont affect your landing (it didnt in their case, and they paid the right price)

[bmc]

Small Penguin:

Since you do not have a clue, of what you speak, maybe you should go find a different forum.

Avcanada is not exclusive for jet gods with infated egos.

[Hedley]

the crew were incredibly idiotic

Harsh words from a Monday Morning Quarterback.

How about you show us all how it's done. Today,
please jump into a Boeing, fly it to somewhere
extraordinarily busy in South America where you don't
speak the language very well, and let's toss in some
widespead really crappy wx and let's see how well you do.

Remember the definition of an accident investigation
board? Six guys spend six months deciding what
two guys should have done in 20 seconds.

[Pirx]

In a small plane I used to take 1 hr reserve, not 30 minutes.
Carrying extra fuel in an airliner is just another cost of doing buisuness.

[small penguin]

the crew were incredibly idiotic

Remember the definition of an accident investigation
board? Six guys spend six months deciding what
two guys should have done in 20 seconds.

I agree completely. I, nor anyone here, should be one to judge a split second decision made by anyone, during duty, not just aviation. But this crew (according to the wiki) circled the airport for 77 minutes. I ask, how many pilots here would do that, knowing you're running out of gas, and placing the fate of the plane, in the hands of the weatherman.

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

small p

Here's an example from not too long ago where the plane landed with about 500lbs left due to a flap problem. I'm guessing that's about 10 to 15min of fuel for an RJ. Hard to put a price on that security IMO.

http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dscgi/ds.p ... 007-10.pdf

[_dwj_]

the crew were incredibly idiotic

Harsh words from a Monday Morning Quarterback.

According to the wikipedia link, the crew asked for a "priority landing" which doesn't mean anything here or in the USA. Another example of where Mayday or PanPan are useful, as discussed in another thread.