YVINTERN
Veteran
That's a LIE...downright LIE...we stopped in Bangkok for fuel just last week with that PIT crew.
Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?
- Thread starter luvthe9
- Start date
- Status
That's a LIE...downright LIE...we stopped in Bangkok for fuel just last week with that PIT crew.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
- Aug 17, 2005
- 2,873
- 18
I thought they stopped at ABE for fuel!
That was costing the FAA(and taxpayers) $600M/year to operate a huge network of FSSs. Back in the 70's, having telephone briefers in every region might have made sense, but today's technology really doesn't necessitate this. They contracted the FSS option out to Lockheed for about $60M/year. There were rough patches in the initial rollout, but things have definitely improved. I think every American would appreciate a government savings of $540M in any government agency.As a former FAA type (and spouse of pilot) I can agree about the FAA blame game! But I have to differ on one thing when it comes to FAA improvements/changes/modernization - they got rid of Flight Service Stations (Automated Flight Service Stations for the younger crowd) <_< Big mistake in my opinion. OK, I've made my yearly comment, sorry to hijack the thread, back to lurking.
YVINTERN
Veteran
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Taking that logic to its conclusion, would the company then send an airplane empty of passengers if it needed the weight in fuel to make the trip non-stop. If what you say is true, then this, in theory, could happen.
Or, in more practical terms...
If the flight needed 8000 pounds more to make it non-stop, would the company bump 40+ passengers with reservations off the flight to accommodate the fuel? That's what you are saying. I doubt it would happen.
signals
Veteran
It sounds like corporate evolution. That's not a term per se, but it's my term. What it means is that management wants to play with your comfort zone. 'If you are comfortable doing it one way, we will throw a wrench in the way you are accustomed to' is the theory.
Basically, they are changing or enforcing certain rules to suit them given the situation. Either evolve to the change or perish.
Apparently while some were flying in a 'comfort zone' Tempe was experimenting in ways to tick you off. They, or their spies, may have been flying and finding fuel saving ways that go against pilot judgement.
Since US formed USAPA, maybe they are specifically targeting this union. I have my theories why they are doing it, but my advice is don't get too comfortable and expect to evolve with the times.
Basically, they are changing or enforcing certain rules to suit them given the situation. Either evolve to the change or perish.
Apparently while some were flying in a 'comfort zone' Tempe was experimenting in ways to tick you off. They, or their spies, may have been flying and finding fuel saving ways that go against pilot judgement.
Since US formed USAPA, maybe they are specifically targeting this union. I have my theories why they are doing it, but my advice is don't get too comfortable and expect to evolve with the times.
NiceLandingCaptain
Senior
- Jul 22, 2007
- 406
- 0
I am commenting here with incomplete information, so I expect some "critiquing" of my comments.
The standard arrival fuel that is carried on US domestic plans for most flights to land with 75 minutes of fuel - that includes the mandatory, FAA 45 minutes PLUS 30 minutes of extra fuel. If the weather is such that an alternate is required or prudent (the decision for this is made jointly by the Captain and his dispatcher), then even more fuel is required. I've been told that US places alternate fuel on 45% of its flights. Internation rules are different, and they usually result in slightly more fuel being required.
This fuel is required to be on board only when the aircraft begins its take-off roll. There is no "required" amount of fuel for landing - other than enough to get the aircraft onto the runway with the engines running. If the crew feels their arrival fuel has gotten critical, they should declare an emergency or divert to a near-by alternate.
The frequency of diversions and/or emergencies is extremely low with Part 121 airlines - I heard the number of 4% thrown out once, but even that seems to be high. But most of these diversions take place when flying into certain airports - PHL is certainly one of those airports which almost always require extra caution (ie - more fuel). Others include SFO, ORD, LAX, and any major airport during the winter or during the thunderstorm season (ie PHX these days).
As far as providing Captains extra, non-required training, this seems to be major overkill. But here again, I don't not have complete information as to what the true facts are with these individuals. I do know of Captains who automatically call for extra fuel on every flight - and usually for no particular reason. This is the part that has gotten management's attention, I'm sure. The real issue is that an aircraft consumes more fuel per mile when its is heavy. It takes about 100 lbs of fuel to carry an extra 1000 lbs during the average flight. Other issues that come up are the requirement to use more thrust during take-off, which causes more wear and tear on expensive engines, and the potential requirement to leave revenue behind - passengers and/or cargo.
So, its sometimes a fine balance between being safe enough or being able to carry the load. As a Captain, it his his responsibility to make sure he uses his experience to ensure the safety of his crew and passengers, but he also needs to consider that his decisions can either contribute to the financial success of the airline, or can contribute to its potential demise. And never before have these decisions had more effect upon these potential outcomes.
That's pretty much fuel 101 - its an extremely safe program. Airliners have run out of fuel before, but its been years since Columbian Air near JFK and UAL near PDX crashed. If memory serves, those are the two most recent crashes. The Air Inter and Air Canada "gliders" were victims of mechanical and "technical" issues. And, of course, there was the accident of that hijacked 76 that was caught on film a few years ago.
Bottom line is safety. And so, if I had the choice, I'd much rather face the ire of my chief pilot for leaving ten folks behind in the terminal than have to figure out the gliding distance to whatever runway I might be able to locate on a dark moonless night over Kansas.
The standard arrival fuel that is carried on US domestic plans for most flights to land with 75 minutes of fuel - that includes the mandatory, FAA 45 minutes PLUS 30 minutes of extra fuel. If the weather is such that an alternate is required or prudent (the decision for this is made jointly by the Captain and his dispatcher), then even more fuel is required. I've been told that US places alternate fuel on 45% of its flights. Internation rules are different, and they usually result in slightly more fuel being required.
This fuel is required to be on board only when the aircraft begins its take-off roll. There is no "required" amount of fuel for landing - other than enough to get the aircraft onto the runway with the engines running. If the crew feels their arrival fuel has gotten critical, they should declare an emergency or divert to a near-by alternate.
The frequency of diversions and/or emergencies is extremely low with Part 121 airlines - I heard the number of 4% thrown out once, but even that seems to be high. But most of these diversions take place when flying into certain airports - PHL is certainly one of those airports which almost always require extra caution (ie - more fuel). Others include SFO, ORD, LAX, and any major airport during the winter or during the thunderstorm season (ie PHX these days).
As far as providing Captains extra, non-required training, this seems to be major overkill. But here again, I don't not have complete information as to what the true facts are with these individuals. I do know of Captains who automatically call for extra fuel on every flight - and usually for no particular reason. This is the part that has gotten management's attention, I'm sure. The real issue is that an aircraft consumes more fuel per mile when its is heavy. It takes about 100 lbs of fuel to carry an extra 1000 lbs during the average flight. Other issues that come up are the requirement to use more thrust during take-off, which causes more wear and tear on expensive engines, and the potential requirement to leave revenue behind - passengers and/or cargo.
So, its sometimes a fine balance between being safe enough or being able to carry the load. As a Captain, it his his responsibility to make sure he uses his experience to ensure the safety of his crew and passengers, but he also needs to consider that his decisions can either contribute to the financial success of the airline, or can contribute to its potential demise. And never before have these decisions had more effect upon these potential outcomes.
That's pretty much fuel 101 - its an extremely safe program. Airliners have run out of fuel before, but its been years since Columbian Air near JFK and UAL near PDX crashed. If memory serves, those are the two most recent crashes. The Air Inter and Air Canada "gliders" were victims of mechanical and "technical" issues. And, of course, there was the accident of that hijacked 76 that was caught on film a few years ago.
Bottom line is safety. And so, if I had the choice, I'd much rather face the ire of my chief pilot for leaving ten folks behind in the terminal than have to figure out the gliding distance to whatever runway I might be able to locate on a dark moonless night over Kansas.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
What's the deal with Canadian aircraft running out of fuel?
IIRC the 1983 AC 767 "Gimli glider" incident was due to a mistake(s) in calculating the fuel load (imperial-to-metric conversions/calculations?).
More recently was the Air Transat incident in 2001 (an A330 gliding in nicely to the Azores). This was due to fuel starvation caused by a leak due to maintenace installing wrong part(s).
pit_till_death
Member
- Aug 13, 2007
- 89
- 0
No, if the flight were to be restricted to 30 or more passengers, then a fuel stop is evaluated.
lildutchgrl
Advanced
- Apr 4, 2007
- 184
- 0
I remember last summer, my flights to/from AMS had to stop nearly every trip in Ireland to get more fuel on the 757. With the full load, they couldn't get enough fuel on so we knew we were going to have to stop. Of course PHL was also having major thunderstorms last year. Also if I recall, a number of flights to SFO and LAS also had to stop in MCI for fuel last summer. Is this something different then that or was this happening last summer to? I am no longer flying, so I don't know much about the fuel situation now as compared to then, but I just remember quite a few fuel stops this time last year.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
That makes more sense, but it's not what you originally said.
pit_till_death
Member
- Aug 13, 2007
- 89
- 0
My apologies. Next time I'll be more specific----just don't really enjoy typing all that much.
freedom
Veteran
- Feb 15, 2006
- 3,244
- 274
yawn ...... isn't this an issue you pilots should have taken up with the FAA rather than the general public ?
A sad attempt at fighting the company ... but you can't fight the company and win when
1. OIL IS ABOVE 130 a barrel
2 . all airlines are laying off pilots ....
You work group ,much like the FA'S has no leverage ... you waitied too long .
A sad attempt at fighting the company ... but you can't fight the company and win when
1. OIL IS ABOVE 130 a barrel
2 . all airlines are laying off pilots ....
You work group ,much like the FA'S has no leverage ... you waitied too long .
- Status
