Fuel stop on a cross-country flight? How rare is this?
 

In all my years of flying I've never had this happen, so I'm curious about opinions or information about a situation like this. Some of the details may not be relevant but I'm adding all the information I know in case it helps with how this could have happened.

VX FLT 25, JFK-SFO JAN 7. A320 overwater version. Scheduled to leave at 11:55, departure moved forward to 1230. However, as we saw the plane was already here, we made it for the gate for the correct departure time, and in fact they did start boarding for an 1155 departure. HOWEVER, since there was no announcement that the plane to take off earlier than 1230, we sat on the tarmac until about 1220 waiting for the final 15 passengers to arrive. Once no one else showed up, the door was closed, and we drove out to have the wings deiced.
The deicing took about half an hour so we took off about 1 o'clock. About an hour and a half into the flight, the pilot came onto the intercom and announce would be stopping in Fresno, as the headwinds made it impossible for us to reach SFO with the fuel on board.

I've flown cross-country many many many times, often in the winter, and I've never had a situation like this. Looking at a map, Fresno seemed about as far as SFO if not a bit further. However, we were also cognizant that SFO could easily have had arrange a late by time we got there, so we assumed that the pilot was taking a precaution based on having possibly circle at SFO if needed. But again, I haven't circled SFO in many years – they usually just keep the planes are taking off, and put a ground hold instead.

So we added fuel at Fresno, and took off for SFO with no other problems. Landed about an hour and a half late.

My question is, how can you fly across country in a storm and not have enough fuel to make your destination? If you're not confident you're going to make it to San Francisco, how can you be confident you're going to make it to Fresno? I have never experienced a situation where a cross-country flight had to stop before its destination to refuel. Is this more common then I think? Was it a "with "perfect storm" of blizzard in JFK, possible ground hold at SF, and winter luggage for all passengers? The plane was nowhere near full – As I mentioned, 15 people that were scheduled to board did not make the flight. And it's a 320 overwater version – could this happen going to Hawaii?

I've flown VX for a long time since leaving United, and I've always been very happy with the service and competence of the pilots and crew. But this really gave me pause – not just because it's a day or two after Alaska took over.

Any input welcome.

It's not "common" but it does happen regularly. I remember a thread a few years ago about A320 transcon flights during winter having this issue. The pilot/airline calculate a fuel load for the trip and as fuel costs fuel to transport they try not to carry too much more than needed to abide by the flight needs and minimum diversion fuel.
30 minutes of deicing will burn plenty & a headwind will burn even more. They may have taken off from JFK hoping to not experience so much burn during the flight and land ok but when it got too close to the risk zone the pilot diverted.
FAT is ~120 miles less than SFO. Another factor may have been flight path to avoid worse weather factors which had you closer to FAT. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jfk-fat,+jfk-sfo

A westbound transcon is already close to the fuel range of an A320, and with the strong headwind from the storm pushing into the west coast, delay due to deicing, and possible delays in to SFO, I'm not surprised that a fuel stop was made. The flight crew and dispatch simply made a safe and prudent decision.

A few years ago I was watching an upcoming US A320 BOS-PHX route I had coming up on Flightaware. The flight probably made one fuel stop a week in MCI.

edit to add: SFO-HNL is actually ~200nm shorter straight line than JFK-SFO

Also looks like today's VRD25 is filed to Fresno, so they're already planning on the fuel stop. It hasn't even left JFK yet.

It happens - shouldn't give you pause, VX has been running A320s to Hawaii for almost a year now I believe. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised though to see the A320s moved off the Hawaii routes once they start cross-fleeting since it does stretch the range of the A320 vs. the 737s.

Here's a good article from CrankyFlier about VX sending the A320s to Hawaii: http://crankyflier.com/2015/04/09/ho...as-even-tried/

I'm totally in favor of pilots being prudent
 

I just never encountered this before. I travel back-and-forth in the winter, usually on the 320, and I've never had this situation. Glad to know it's not all that uncommon, but I am a bit surprised they don't carry fuel in the winter for exactly this potentiality. I'm guessing they knew the potential for strong headwinds, as well as the need for deicing etc.

All in all not a big deal, and there were only two connecting passengers for whom they held the flight to San Diego.

It's not that they don't want to, it's that they can't carry any more. Either due to the weight limitations or that the tanks are already full.

Flight cancelled. :eek:

As you know, I do a fair amount of travel, but I've had the fuel stop
maybe once every four or five years tops. The airlines don't like them
any more than you do, but there are sometimes circumstances such
as described by the other posters require a change in plans. One
additional possibility regarding the choice of an intermediate
destination might be the direction of the wind currents. I'm not
sure how often a headwind would be more substantial going from
the east to SFO rather than to FAT, but one never knows. A quick
look indicates, though, that FAT is about 120 miles closer to JFK.

Because the fuel tanks are not large enough to hold sufficient fuel for that in the stronger winter headwinds.

Because the flight planners and pilots know what they're doing. They know what the loads and performance metrics of the planes are and know what the requirements are for fuel minimums, diversion planning and other considerations.

But it is not exceptionally uncommon for westbound transcon A320s to have winter "gas and go" stops. Even some 737s have to when the winds are particularly bad. And it is absolutely not a safety issue for passengers. They schedule the diversion in advance in order to maintain the massive cushions required (alternate airport + 45 minutes at a minimum).


No, because they plan appropriately for it. Usually seats are blocked, reducing passenger/baggage weight. Also, the winds usually aren't quite as bad further south so that helps the Hawaii flights.

And, FWIW, the same thing happens with the 757s TATL from time to time, especially in the winter, as those winds are similarly strong. That's why some flights will divert to Gander or such.

With the weather issues in SFO today, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to plan for extra hold times as well

There is no alternative. It's not as though they departed JFK with insufficient fuel, it's simply that there was likely not an ounce more to be carried.

In reality, if the aircraft could make it to FAT, it can easily make it to SFO. But, not without dipping into reserves and that is something no Captain, no dispatcher, and no carrier will do.

I don't know how you define "rare" or "common" but it's certainly not an every day occurence. It's certainly something carriers don't want as it is costly and delays not only passengers, but the aircraft and crew as well.

I recall two or three occasions - a middle-of-the-night stop in Kansas City on the SFO-PIT redeye.

fwiw, the plane had plenty of fuel to get to SFO. But it needs to have fuel to get to SFO, then to some number of diversion airports that don't have weather issues, plus xx minutes of circling, etc. So they didn't have enough fuel for all of those safety measures.

SFO is about 100 miles past FAT, so it was close. But there's no "close enough" in the fuel calculations/regulations.

:confused:

Westbound redeyes are very, very rare. And a fuel stop eastbound is almost unheard of, certainly for weather reasons.

Once, many years ago, I was on a flight that had to make a fuel stop at SMF before continuing to SFO. So, as said, it is not common but it does happen.

The most interesting thing was how it happened: We were descending steeply very early, then the pilot came on the intercom: "No time to explain but we're landing in Sacramento." Only after we landed did he explain what was happening.