NoMiddleSeat

I was hoping someone would post this as I'm curious. I'm not passing judgement, more curious than anything else.
Yesterday this flight (A319) was flying PHX - DFW but had to make a emergency fuel landing at Dyess Air Force base.
I thought you were required to carry hold fuel and alternate fuel, that being said how did this happen?

tashworth

Looks like it was actually Friday, and due to weather in DFW, they must have been informed of a delay and thus landed to avoid running out of fuel--

http://airnation.net/2012/07/22/us-a...ergency-dyess/

ibrandsguest

I've had that happen in the Northeast, due to storms- landing at DCA instead of LGA, on the way north. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

BoeingBoy

Actually, no. If the weather forecast is good enough at the destination, alternate fuel isn't required. If there is not expected to be any holding, hold fuel isn't required. The only fuel needed 100% of the time is the destination fuel and reserve fuel.

That said, sounds like holding was for longer than anticipated and once the fuel got down to only enough to continue to the destination plus reserve plus any alternate fuel, the flight had to divert. Holding longer wasn't an option at that point.

Jim

Bobster

When a pilot declares a fuel emergency it means he is requesting priority landing clearance ahead of other airplanes intending to land. It means that the pilot is able to comply with the request from ATC but cannot accept additional delay. The word "emergency" here is basically the same as "minimum fuel" but it's more emphatic and less likely to be misunderstood by ATC.

skitch23

I was flying SEA-PHX a couple months ago and due to a freak storm we ended up in a 30min hold before being diverted 30-45min north to LAS. At the time I felt better knowing that planes carried enough fuel for an extra hour's worth of flying in order to get to an alternate airport a couple hundred miles away. But now after reading BoeingBoy's quote above, I don't feel quite as comfortable....

BoeingBoy

The worst that could happen is that your flight couldn't hold and would divert somewhere for fuel. There is a dispatcher watching over every flight, keeping the crew apprised of changes that could affect that flight. Besides, the reserve fuel is there for contingencies.

Most of the time, an alternate airport is listed on the flight plan and fuel to reach that alternate is included in the fuel load. Holding fuel is more airport and weather dependent but it's a rare flight that departs with only fuel to reach the destination and reserve fuel. But given the right circumstances that is the minimum fuel required for takeoff.

Jim

NoMiddleSeat

This discuss is interesting to me. Perhaps I didn't state it clearly but I didn't mean "holding" fuel but reserve plus alternate.
Using this situation, they burned all their reserve so why didn't they go to their alternate? It just seems somewhat desperate and urgent that they had to land at an Air Force Base and surly that couldn't have been part of the flight plan.

dcpatti

I was on a flight a few years ago, ironically also to DFW, where the alternate airport (Shreveport) couldnt take us, because more planes got diverted there than they could handle. A tornado had popped up in the flight path to DFW. We diverted again to MEM. Not fun but could explain why you ended up where you did. You can't carry unlimited fuel and airports have finite capacity even if you're not getting off the plane.

BoeingBoy

Really two issues...

1 - a flight should never burn it's reserve fuel unless it's a dire situation. It should always land with reserve (plus alternate if landing at destination) fuel on board. The reason for reserve fuel is to allow flying to the destination and not being able to land, then fly to the alternate without sucking fumes by the time you get there. It also gives options in case a flight can't land at the alternate either. Over the vast majority of the lower 48 that 45 minutes of reserve fuel will be enough to get to another airport and land if the destination and alternate become unusable.

2 - In a effort to stretch the hold time out hoping land at the destination, the alternate was likely changed to a closer one (or one on the way to the destination since we don't know what the original alternate was). This is something of a game of guesswork - if the flight can hold an extra 10 minutes (or whatever), what are the chances that it will be able to land at the destination as opposed to diverting earlier and burning less fuel if it can't land at the destination.

#2 is where the dispatcher is really important since he/she has the "big picture" and the crew doesn't. Obviously over a career I've had all the possible situations except the dire emergency and except for those dire situations they become run of the mill situations.

Jim

cwe84

DFW has the weirdest weather.... You can be on approach and end up diverting cause the weather changes so fast. I have diverted more times than I care to when going to DFW.

OPNLguy

Just curious, as a dispatcher (not for US), but how is it known that this was an "emergency fuel landing" versus just a "routine" weather diversion to an airport that just happened to be a military base? (Depending upon an individual airline's Ops Specs, some military bases can be designated as destination alternates, just like non-military airports can be.)

OPNLguy

No real reason that you should. I mean, we haven't left one up there yet...

Seriously though, airline dispatchers at all airlines keep a very close watch on the forecast and actual weather, and keep flightcrews updated while they're enroute. You'd be genuinely surprised at how many delay scenarios can be anticipated in advance and the appropriate amount of fuel planned for possible holding and possible diversion (to an airport that must also meet certain weather minimums). It's not rocket science, but it does involve constant monitoring of the weather, which we do routinely, as well as our experience while operating as a centralized function. A crew might watch the weather for LAX only while they're enroute to it, and then it's off to the next destination, where as I have multiple flights to LAX, and am looking at the LAX weather for my entire shift. As such, we pretty know the trends of what it'll do.

In reference to my first comment, I'm sure someone will probably bring up the Avianca 707 fuel starvation crash from January 1990. I was there for the entire NTSB Hearing, but the simple answer is that this airline (like all foreign airlines serving the USA) was operating under a different FAA ruleset (Part 129) versus the Part 121 that US-registered airlines are. Part 129 pretty much tells a foreign airline to operate under the rules applicable to their home country, and in the case of Avianca 52, their dispatcher didn't have anywhere near the same duties, responsibilities and authorities that a Part 121 dispatcher does. As a result, nobody (at the airline) was monitoring the fuel state of the aircraft, and nobody was in a position to divert the aircraft to a suitable airport when the weather-related delays became longer than they had the fuel for.

Another example is PHX a couple of days ago. Big-time blowing dust and gusty winds from thunderstorm outflows. I counted at least 45 diversions (by all airlines) scattered to a dozen different airports, and there were no emergency landings, let alone anyone actually running their engines dry. The system works...

Cheers....

Bobster

1. ATC asked them to divert to the military base.
2. The pilots agreed, but only on the condition that they get priority clearance.

It became news because someone heard the words "fuel emergency," which is how pilots often ask for priority, on a scanner and then it went viral.

Only one U.S. airliner (United DC-8 in Portland, 1968) has ever crashed due to fuel starvation and that was in part because the pilots did NOT declare a fuel emergency to ATC when they in fact had a fuel emergency.

There was one year recently when Continental landing at EWR declared almost 100 fuel emergencies (or minimum fuel which is the same thing) and there were about 50 more from other airlines. That's more than usual, but it's certainly not a rare event. And this is only one airport.

http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/fil...memo_FINAL.pdf

BoeingBoy

Actually, minimum fuel and fuel emergency are different. The FAA (ATC) standardized the nomenclature a number of years ago to eliminate possible confusion at to the fuel state of the aircraft.

Minimum fuel is defined as the fuel supply has reached a point that "any undue
delay" in landing at the destination can't be accepted. Fuel emergency is used when the fuel has reached a point where proceeding directly to the point of intended landing is required and that priority handling is required and expected.

Jim