Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

This A320 was very low on fuel...

Yes, if destination airport is equipped.

LFMD, France

You only need a CAT3 alternate and that prevents an off-airport forced landing, which would prob99 destroy an airliner.

It’s always been my view that airline travel is so safe not because of the crew training and “sheer brilliance” (which is the usual industry line) but due to all the other factors

Airliners do divert fairly often.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

You only need a CAT3 alternate and that prevents an off-airport forced landing, which would prob99 destroy an airliner.

Not sure what it has to do with this case… as to your other factors as listed… again, another subject.

Most, if not all, airlines operate with very tight fuel planing and policy. Carrying extra fuel costs.
The tools given nowadays permit very precise flight planning and fuel calculations down to the kg (notwithstanding what the weather really will be…). At the end of each flight we got to compare the planed vs used fuel, and the differences were astonishingly small, usually in the order of 30-40kg, but also down right down to the kg, this after a 3-4 hour flight having burnt 10’000kg or more.

On some flights, you just cannot uplift any extra fuel due to MTOM, easy decision… well not always, as I remember leaving some catering trolleys behind, or even luggage to the cheers of happy passengers
But there still are plenty of flights with an open payload. Again, carrying extra fuel costs. Adds up quickly for an average to big airline having hundreds of flights a day… therefore pilots are drilled, and in some airlines put under pressure, into taking as little fuel as necessary. Part of the job. Of course, the final decision as to the extra fuel is left to the CDR. In most airlines…

One last time, carrying extra fuel costs (and if anybody cares, pollutes more). Now guess what, people take flying for granted and don’t want to pay any more than they have to, managers want to fill their pockets, investors expect good ROI in either dividends or share price, and the state is looking forward to rake in on the taxes.
General greed makes for safer flying, doesn’t it?

Dan
ain't the Destination, but the Journey
LSZF, Switzerland

Dan wrote:

Now guess what, people take flying for granted and don’t want to pay any more than they have to, managers want to fill their pockets, investors expect good ROI in either dividends or share price, and the state is looking forward to rake in on the taxes.

My recent round trip on BA from Geneva to Austin via London was CHF 490, about CHF 163 was taxes and fees. If my math is right, this leaves about 2 cents/km of revenue for BA.

Fly more.
LSGY, Switzerland

Peter wrote:

You only need a CAT3 alternate and that prevents an off-airport forced landing, which would prob99 destroy an airliner.

Wrong conclusion in many regards.

1st of all, CAT III is heavily restricted, both in airport and crew requirements but first and foremost in weather. Crosswind limits are marginal, as CAT II/III is made for fog primarily, where there is very few wind.

2nd ly, you can’t have a “CAT III alternate”. Any alternate needs to be one step higher in minimas than the destination is. The maximum you can get out of this is CAT II. Not many flight crews would accept an alternate which is worse than the destination in the forecast, neither would dispatchers issue an alternate like this. Most of the time, if the destination forecast is really tight, then you get at least a CAT I alternate. Many pilots will want more.

Airlines “get away” with the kind of fuel planning they do because it has been proven over the decades of electronic flight planning that the resreves are most of the time adequate. While there have been incidents with marginal fuel, they are very few and very far between. Having worked as a dispatcher now 20 years ago, even then I was amazed at the precision we could predict fuel consumption even on 11 hour flights, let alone short haul, and I strongly suppose that in 20 years programs and wind models have greatly improved.

I was always critical of airlines which did not allow their pilots to have the last decision on fuel. I am not current on the state of affairs today, but at the time there were some very high profile airlines who did not accept any additional fuel by their pilots without them calling OPS and getting authorisation. As far as I know today, there are very few mostly non-European airlines who have this policy, at the same time pilots are also pretty confident about their fuel plans these days, out of experience. In many cases you will find that a flight which ended up in a predicament just as this one actually DID carry extra fuel.

Running out of fuel altogether is very rare indeed. It happens but usually there is a lot of holes in the cheese before you get a commercial airliner to end up crashing because of this. Last one I recall was a BAE146 in Colombia which had ignored all planning guidelines in a balant and criminal attempt to do something the airplane was not capable of doing. Before that, Avianca in NY comes to mind, decades ago.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

“prevents an off-airport forced landing, which would prob99 destroy an airliner.”
I can remember 3 successful landings. An out-of-fuel Viscount in Devon (?) Smashing through drystone dykes in small fields
A Boeing in the US. A Boeing in small trees in South America.
Both latter two precautionary landings near a river.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

This is a competition driven price subsidized by much higher fares on other routes, perhaps even an error fare. BA‘ ASK is currently at 0,0828€.
Looks like BA and UA are at it in a sort of proxy war of Oneworld vs. *Alliance on that route.

always learning
LO__, Austria

2nd ly, you can’t have a “CAT III alternate”. Any alternate needs to be one step higher in minimas than the destination is. The maximum you can get out of this is CAT II.

Just a small correction: The (subsequently changed) step up method for alternate planning was:
If CAT II/III avail = Plan CAT I
Hence CAT II/III were grouped, not distinguished.

Old news now. For planning there is this and once moving it is operational minima.

Last Edited by Snoopy at 04 Dec 20:03
always learning
LO__, Austria

It’s always been my view that airline travel is so safe not because of the crew training and “sheer brilliance” (which is the usual industry line)

Not sheer brilliance but lots of people working well, looking at what went wrong and agreeing to do better. Can’t exactly say the same for GA unfortunately.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

Old news now. For planning there is this and once moving it is operational minima.

Thanks. As I said, my airline dispatchers days have been over for 20 years now.

Actually, the new rules are a sight easier to use than the old ones were while achieving similar safety margins.

Snoopy wrote:

Can’t exactly say the same for GA unfortunately.

Actually I wonder why. Particularly fuel policies are dead easy to enter into flight planning products which then would present people with usable OFP’s to use and proper fuel planning. Many of those unfortunately are still very pedestrian. There should be an effort made that all big players in the flight planning market produce this kind of fuel calculations which correspond to the recent rule changes. It’s easy but it needs to be done.

Same goes for minima. With digital charting, it would be dead easy to provide guidance on minima needed for alternates on the OFP.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top