TWA Fan 1

You are right, they didn't.

Then again I didn't write that either in my original post on this issue. What I said is that the memo implied that pilots might feel pressured into flying into EWR with insufficient fuel, which is why I added the comment by US DOT in my excerpts which raised that concern.

TWA Fan 1

The document did not make reference to any CAL management stating this was the wrong a/c for TATL, then again it was management's idea to use this type on TATL, so it would have been surprising if they criticized their own decision.

However, there were objections from CAL ALPA, ATC, as well as CAL's CMO inspector, as excerpted here:

(from page 3 of the cover letter)
• Aircraft Type: 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.

(from page 13 of 19 of the enclosure)
The Continental CMO inspector responsible for the 757 fleet indicated some concern with using that aircraft type on long, overseas flights because of its limited range, even with full tanks.

scosprey

I'm sorry, Continental's "CMO" inspector is a "what"? (CMO=?)

TWA Fan 1

Certificate Management Office

spin88

thanks for both your and Clubord's participation. ^ Your comments, and the posting by TWA of the actual DOT/FAA letter with quotes was very informative to me and I expect others.

And I would not take your bet on ATC issues, but then perhaps it raises the issue of flying this AC at the end of its range into a dense ATC environment. I would be curious if these ultra long 757 runs were overrepresented in the fuel emergencies.

As I have said I don't see a safety issue (I would feel safe on these flights, I have just avoided them entirely in favor of wide bodies) but perhaps with more 763s (and eventual 787s) the issue will fade away with these bird being used only on shorter narrower flights (such as EDI, MAN, etc)

Now if they would just fix the crappy coffee....

TWA Fan 1

The report provides all the answers to your questions above, although, in all fairness, it is now quite out date (the data goes back to 2006).

The majority of the low-fuel and fuel-emergency incidents analyzed in the report were due to CO 752 aircraft arriving westbound on Transatlantic routes.

Perhaps the single clearest indication of this are the graphs on page 5, 6 and 7 of the enclosure. These show that low-fuel and fuel-emergency incidents increased at EWR from 44 in 2005 to 151, a rise which coincided with the introduction by CO of the 752 on TATL.

There is, however, definitely no safety issue. Even at the time when the bulletins were issued, no flights were at risk of falling out of the sky.

Since the investigation prompted by Senator Lautenberg, CO's (now UA) approach has been less aggressive. This means that if flight crews determine a fuel stop is needed then they will take one.

That may be an inconvenience for passengers, but I would suggest it's less inconvenient than falling out of the sky.

In some respects the issue is not strictly related to the 757-200, which is truly an outstanding plane. There are other routes, on other airlines, which operate their planes right to the limit of their range and also experience occasional fuel stops (QF comes to mind with its 744ER on DFW-SYD).

But there is no question that on some of the routes UA operates the 752 Transatlantic, there is a chance that fuel stops will be necessary at certain times of the year on their westbound runs.

scosprey

Thanks, TWA Fan 1. So I take it this office is headed by the Chief Certificate Officer, who would report to UA's SVP-Flight Operations? And he or she would take measures to "protect" UA's FAA-granted operating certificate? (Sorry to trouble you with these extra questions; googling didn't seem to turn up any relevant information.)

TWA Fan 1

Actually, when I wrote Chief Certificate Officer, I meant CMO Inspector.

My bad.

scosprey

No, I think you had it right in your recent post. I had asked way up thread (post#39) "What is a chief certificate officer?".

TWA Fan 1

I remember that, but when I had written that, what I meant was in fact CMO Inspector.

Chief Certificate Officer was just my mistake, although it is possible that such a position exists.

But that's not what I meant.

cv11nyc

I don't want to argue this much further, but if the crew determined they needed a fuel stop either before or during the crossing then they made the fuel stop. The actions of Senator Lautenberg had nothing to do with that fact.

TWA Fan 1

The fact is, though, that, after that report was issued the number of low-fuel declarations by westbound CO TATL 752's diminished, and the number of fuel-stops increased.

There are other factors at play, such as average payloads and weather obviously, so we cannot make an exact correlation.

However, one thing the Lautenberg report did indisputably achieve, was to modify CAL's posture vis-a-vis this practice.

That is not to say that pilots necessarily reacted to the pressure exerted by the company, although the fact that CAL ALPA was the party that initiated this process with Senator Lautenberg would tend to indicate that at least the union was concerned that the company was attempting to pressure pilots.

astanley

I haven't seen/heard anything on the max 9's ETOPS certification; I think the NG has ETOPS 180 which would put Europe in play. The 3,595 range is probably not the IFR range, which is Destination + Alternate + 45 minutes; for CDG, ORY could be an alternate for the 737, so you lose 416 miles off of the stated 3,595 range -- making the dispatch-able range something like 3,100 miles.

That puts most EU destinations out of reach (not even SNN from IAD) from IAD, and barely more from EWR.

star_world

Did you read one word of my post? What was hazardous about operating 757s on these routes? I'm not even slightly involved in this separate discussion about the existence (or not) of a memo or directive. There is zero misinformation from me in this thread - if you think there is I'd love for you to point it out.

mduell

The figures quoted are typical IFR figures; no one is really interested in range until you run the tanks dry. In the Detailed Technical Characteristics Boeing mentions the assumptions, including "DOMESTIC RESERVES" or "TYPICAL MISSION RULES".

But you still have to derate the range for winds (ESAD).