GateHold
Apr 24, 08, 8:31 pm
A partial cut from this week's ASK THE PILOT column in Salon….
Are the airlines playing fast and loose with fuel?:
<<< MSNBC.com was responsible for a splashy and alarmist story last week accusing airlines of unsafe fuel practices. Much of what gives the article traction is the manipulative way that it's packaged. “Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel.” was MSNBC's alarmist headline. Actually, that's not what they're claiming. We've been through this before, but here's a review:
Determining how much fuel will be carried on a given flight is somewhat scientific undertaking, with hard-and-fast rules. The numbers are wrangled backstage, so to speak, by an airline's dispatchers and flight planning staff. Intended routing and altitude are balanced against wind and weather conditions to formulate a minimum legal carriage. This amount cannot be arbitrarily reduced. The regulations get complicated, particularly on international routes, but a good place to start is the US domestic rule: You cannot take off without enough fuel to reach your intended destination, then proceed to the most distant of any required alternate airport, plus maintain a 45-minute cushion on top of that. You cannot – *cannot * – depart with less.
Payload permitting, however, you are welcome to depart with * more * than is legally needed. A fatter margin gives you greater flexibility, i.e. holding time, in the event of unexpected delays. It's this above-and-beyond fuel that airlines are cutting back on, not regulatory fuel. It stands to reason that more gas is better than less. It provides greater time to troubleshoot problems or to wait out airborne holds, postponing the need to divert. But while cutbacks allow less wiggle room, they are not dangerous. The penalty isn't crashing, it's having to divert earlier than you'd like, resulting in hassles for passengers and crew. >>>
Plus, vetting the news coverage of a crash in Congo:
<<< …The Associated Press also reminded us that Hewa Bora Airways had recently been added to the European Union's airline blacklist, banning the company from operating into EU airports. “According to an AP count,” the story continues, “[Congo] has suffered at least 20 other fatal plane crashes since 1996. Most of the aircraft are aging planes from the former Soviet Union."
A few of things here. First, and for what it's worth, Soviet-designed aircraft are commonly described as aging or obsolete even when they're not. But more importantly, crash counts like the one above fail to distinguish between legitimate airlines and other, quasi-commercial operators -- companies that are not "airlines" as most people understand them. The majority of names on the EU blacklist list belong to companies that wouldn't be flying into Europe anyway.
No, air travel in Africa is not as safe or reliable as it is in other parts of the world. But that alone can be misleading. When the difference between a "safe" airline and an "unsafe" one is determined by one or two incidents spread over thousands, or even millions of departures, those distinctions aren't terribly meaningful. Virtually no carriers are outright hazards, and all of them offer a safer alternative to driving. Ethiopian Airlines, South African Airways, and Royal Air Maroc are among well-respected names with excellent reputations. Tunisair has never had a crash. Air Zimbabwe has been accident-free since the 1970s. >>>
To read the full article, click here….
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/04/25/askthepilot274/
Entry to Salon is free. Watch for the "Skip this Ad" or "Enter Salon" link on the gateway page.
Last week in ASK THE PILOT: The ergonomic hell of economy class, and how one airline intends to change it.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/04/18/askthepilot273
Are the airlines playing fast and loose with fuel?:
<<< MSNBC.com was responsible for a splashy and alarmist story last week accusing airlines of unsafe fuel practices. Much of what gives the article traction is the manipulative way that it's packaged. “Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel.” was MSNBC's alarmist headline. Actually, that's not what they're claiming. We've been through this before, but here's a review:
Determining how much fuel will be carried on a given flight is somewhat scientific undertaking, with hard-and-fast rules. The numbers are wrangled backstage, so to speak, by an airline's dispatchers and flight planning staff. Intended routing and altitude are balanced against wind and weather conditions to formulate a minimum legal carriage. This amount cannot be arbitrarily reduced. The regulations get complicated, particularly on international routes, but a good place to start is the US domestic rule: You cannot take off without enough fuel to reach your intended destination, then proceed to the most distant of any required alternate airport, plus maintain a 45-minute cushion on top of that. You cannot – *cannot * – depart with less.
Payload permitting, however, you are welcome to depart with * more * than is legally needed. A fatter margin gives you greater flexibility, i.e. holding time, in the event of unexpected delays. It's this above-and-beyond fuel that airlines are cutting back on, not regulatory fuel. It stands to reason that more gas is better than less. It provides greater time to troubleshoot problems or to wait out airborne holds, postponing the need to divert. But while cutbacks allow less wiggle room, they are not dangerous. The penalty isn't crashing, it's having to divert earlier than you'd like, resulting in hassles for passengers and crew. >>>
Plus, vetting the news coverage of a crash in Congo:
<<< …The Associated Press also reminded us that Hewa Bora Airways had recently been added to the European Union's airline blacklist, banning the company from operating into EU airports. “According to an AP count,” the story continues, “[Congo] has suffered at least 20 other fatal plane crashes since 1996. Most of the aircraft are aging planes from the former Soviet Union."
A few of things here. First, and for what it's worth, Soviet-designed aircraft are commonly described as aging or obsolete even when they're not. But more importantly, crash counts like the one above fail to distinguish between legitimate airlines and other, quasi-commercial operators -- companies that are not "airlines" as most people understand them. The majority of names on the EU blacklist list belong to companies that wouldn't be flying into Europe anyway.
No, air travel in Africa is not as safe or reliable as it is in other parts of the world. But that alone can be misleading. When the difference between a "safe" airline and an "unsafe" one is determined by one or two incidents spread over thousands, or even millions of departures, those distinctions aren't terribly meaningful. Virtually no carriers are outright hazards, and all of them offer a safer alternative to driving. Ethiopian Airlines, South African Airways, and Royal Air Maroc are among well-respected names with excellent reputations. Tunisair has never had a crash. Air Zimbabwe has been accident-free since the 1970s. >>>
To read the full article, click here….
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/04/25/askthepilot274/
Entry to Salon is free. Watch for the "Skip this Ad" or "Enter Salon" link on the gateway page.
Last week in ASK THE PILOT: The ergonomic hell of economy class, and how one airline intends to change it.
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2008/04/18/askthepilot273