Originally Posted by
PHLGovFlyer
Not at all relevant. Emergency fuel declarations are not the same as weather related diversions that typically are worked out a large distance from the destination airport. There is little correlation between the two.
The FAA doesn't seem to agree. They suspect not only a correlation, but causation. It's just that the suspected correlation is a negative one: a diversion reduces the chances of an emergency fuel declaration, whereas not diverting increases the chances of an emergency fuel declaration on arrival.
The report says: "We were concerned that
fuel-saving measures may have contributed to the low fuel declarations because of two pilot bulletins issued by Continental Airlines in 2007. In a February 2007 bulletin, Continental Airlines officials expressed concerns with the higher-than-expected number of fuel stops pilots were making due to unusually strong headwinds on flights from Europe into Newark Liberty. The bulletin stated that it was the airline’s strong desire to reduce the number of 757 fuel stops. In an October 2007 bulletin, Continental Airlines stated that there continued to be an opportunity to reduce unwarranted crew-initiated fuel additions. This bulletin further stated that
adding fuel indiscriminately without critical thinking ultimately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding. . . . We were concerned that
these types of bulletins might put pressure on pilots to either not stop for fuel when needed or to carry insufficient amounts of fuel.
Originally Posted by
PHLGovFlyer
It's likely that many of those aircraft that declared min or emergency fuel actually landed at EWR without diverting. An emergency or minimum fuel declaration is not a diversion.
Well, yes, if a plane that actually
diverted still had emergency or minimum fuel levels on arrival at the destination, something must have gone wrong at the diversion point (not enough fuel added). So, it's likely that few/none of the flights declaring minimum or emergency fuel had made diversions, but that there were no diversions, or that the two issues are completely unrelated. Instead, the planes that did divert would have landed with more than minimum fuel. What the statistics about minimum-fuel declarations show is that the use of a 757 on these routes increases the likelihood that when headwinds are strong, the crew will have to decide between making a fuel stop (delaying the pax on that flight)
or declaring minimum/emergency fuel on arrival (delaying the pax on other flights waiting to land).
Originally Posted by
PHLGovFlyer
The data in the report says nothing whatsoever about fuel stops on 757 flights. It simply doesn't apply to any argument about diversion rates (aka "fuel stops") or thier causes.
Uh, yes it does: "In a February 2007 bulletin, Continental Airlines officials expressed concerns with the higher-than-expected number of
fuel stops pilots were making due to
unusually strong headwinds on flights from Europe into Newark Liberty." Also, please see below.
Originally Posted by
belynch
From the first page in the document:
We found that minimum and emergency fuel declarations had increased on flights into the Newark area; however, there were no instances where aircraft landed with fuel levels below those required by FAA (based on the 20 flights we reviewed). The increases were attributable to several factors, including differences in pilot and controller interpretation of minimum and emergency fuel declarations and air carrier use of smaller planes on international routes.
But there is more to the document than the first page. The second page says: "
Air traffic controllers and Continental Airlines’ Air Line Pilots Association Safety Chairman expressed concerns regarding
the use of Boeing 757s on long, overseas routes. They were concerned that use of
this aircraft type and flights into congested areas, like the northeastern United States, were contributing to the increased number of minimum fuel declarations. For example, on flights from
Barcelona to Newark, a route that Continental Airlines has served since May 2006, air
traffic controllers reported that pilots were declaring minimum fuel on a regular basis. Our analysis disclosed that pilots for this flight declared minimum fuel 23 times during 2007, the highest number of any individual flight that we reviewed."