Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel
Apr 17, 2008, 9:55 am
#16
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold(OWE), QF LTG, MR Plat, IHG Spire, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,156
Apr 17, 2008, 10:45 am
#17
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
The question revolves around how much "extra" fuel is enough? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? 60 minutes?
At my airline, 15 to 30 minutes of extra fuel is very common. Sometimes we'll have more, somtimes less. Small amounts of extra fuel mean that you have few options if you encounter delays. It makes it much more likely that you'll have to divert for more fuel which is a lot more expensive than carrying a bit extra.
At my airline, 15 to 30 minutes of extra fuel is very common. Sometimes we'll have more, somtimes less. Small amounts of extra fuel mean that you have few options if you encounter delays. It makes it much more likely that you'll have to divert for more fuel which is a lot more expensive than carrying a bit extra.
Apr 17, 2008, 11:05 am
#18
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
What were the circumstances of the incident? Was LHR the primary destination (probably)? What were the minimum required reserves for that particular flight? Did the pilot-in-command verify operation's calculations for the flight? Did the PIC verify fuel loads? Were air traffic, weather/winds, and/or random vectoring issues on that flight? Did the pilot consider an earlier alternate when fuel became an issue, or was (s)he aware that fuel was becoming an issue?
Apr 17, 2008, 12:08 pm
#19
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 561
If pilots believe that it is necessary to carry more fuel, why not lobby the FAA to change the requirement? That would seem to be a more reasonable approach if it is, in fact, a safety issue. Otherwise it is a lot like lobbying to get the third pilot back in the cockpit because it would add to the safety of flights. It might make some folks feel better, but there isn't any significant evidence that it improves flight safety.
Apr 17, 2008, 12:52 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: TPA
Programs: Hilton Gold, DL DIrt Medallion
Posts: 38,267
Apr 17, 2008, 1:57 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bryn Mawr PA & Wailea HI
Posts: 15,726
MisterNice
Apr 17, 2008, 3:39 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Francisco
Programs: AA 3mm Plat
Posts: 10,067
Apr 18, 2008, 7:03 pm
#23
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 467
Bollocks
This story is typical media sensationalism. True, some carriers are not providing the delay buffers they once did, which can sometimes lead to inconvenient diversions. But it's insane to think flights are being dispatched with less than the required FAR minimums.
Here are a couple of articles I published that discuss fuel parameters...
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot129/
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot255/
Patrick Smith
www.askthepilot.com
Here are a couple of articles I published that discuss fuel parameters...
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot129/
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot255/
Patrick Smith
www.askthepilot.com