Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ryanair Fuel Ration Pilots!  
User currently offlineReadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3282 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 13425 times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/bus...ctors/transport/article4641399.ece

In the article the newspapers says the airline has decided how much extra fuel they can carry in case of problems, do you think other airline management will follow this path?  Sad


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19233 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13329 times:

So long as they have enough for bad weather, diversions, holding, etc, I believe they don't need more.


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13299 times:

As many other airlines today, FR uses a simple operations system, which calculates fuel based on weight, distance, weather, legal requirements and experience. Now the captain receives this paper and has the full discretion to add fuel if he deems it necessary. He will have to justify his decision though. He can't just add another ton "for mum", but e.g. he knows from experience that on a certain airport under the current weather conditions he might have to spend a longer period in holding, he will add fuel. In the end it is his decision and responsibility.

Jan


User currently offlineHowSwedeitis From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13246 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So long as it is within FAA, or in this case, JAA regulations, it is OK.

-HSII



Heja Sverige!!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7165 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13235 times:



Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 1):
So long as they have enough for bad weather, diversions, holding, etc, I believe they don't need more.

Exactly - whilst the Originating post uses !'s in the title to demonstrate shock! and horror! at this decision, it is nothing more than a sensible decision. FR are a safe airline.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineSmeg From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 13137 times:

You want to carry more fuel than the legal requirement - Justify it.
Every Pilot carrying whatever they want - Costs go up massively, airline may go under - find another Job.

To me, so long as they are carrying what they are legally required to do, then that is fine.

Question? With FR flying into the "smaller" airports, is there the need to carry the same volume of extra fuel as other airlines going into the major hubs? I know that planes going into LHR for example tend to carry extra for the hold, just because it is LHR, and it is going to be busy!


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13744 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13103 times:

A spokesman for the airline rejected the pilots’ claims as “anonymous, unverified and inaccurate”. He said: “No pilot is allowed to fly with minimum fuel as these clowns claim.”

He admitted, however, that pilots were allowed extra fuel only in “exceptional cases”. He said Ryanair had suffered one Mayday in the past three years caused by fuel shortages.

The Times (UK)



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSashA From Russia, joined May 1999, 861 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12906 times:

I think we know how similar restriction led to that Tu154M crash near Donetsk in 2006. Confronted by thunderstrom a Pulkovo Tu154 crew are said to have relied on their high performer plane and attempted, as many times before, to go above the thunder clouds as opposed to a safer but more fuel wasteful go around... while a Turkish Airbus turned around. Insider pilot stated Captains were under constant pressure from airline to save fuel at all costs, i.e. put skills and judgement to maximum use, or bonuses would be cut!

Why won't the industry learn? Is the extra fuel not used up during the flight gets discarded , drained away ... or does the refueling just top up the needed amount?



An2/24/28,Yak42,Tu154/134,IL18/62/96,B737/757/767,A310/320/319,F100,BAe146,EMB-145,CRJ,A340-600,B747-400,A-330-300,A-340
User currently offlineBlue_Angel From France, joined Jun 1999, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12826 times:



Quoting SashA (Reply 7):
Why won't the industry learn? Is the extra fuel not used up during the flight gets discarded , drained away ... or does the refueling just top up the needed amount?

The refueling tops up the needed amount... the problem is, the more fuel you take at first, the more weight you have to carry, and we all know that more weight = more fuel used


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12795 times:

Have to laugh. Especially at all the "armchair pilots" who give their qualified support to this stupid decision by FR management. I feel much better that they have your support.

Personally, it's a slap in the face to any pilot working for FR! Pilots realise the impact of carrying additional fuel, however, they also realise the impact of delays and other factors that can't be computed by a computer program. So, that's when they rely on their experience to make a PROFESSIONAL judgement and add fuel where necessary. The 300Kg addition is so arbitrary it's a joke!

The simple fact is, the PIC will take whatever fuel he feels is necessary for the safe operation of the flight. He signs the release indicating that and he stakes his license on that decision every time he flies.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12194 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
Have to laugh. Especially at all the "armchair pilots" who give their qualified support to this stupid decision by FR management. I feel much better that they have your support.

I have gotten several PMs from people who have interpreted my comments as derogatory people who are not pilots. I apologise if this is the case but that is not my intention.

My point is when you are sick you go to a professional, a physician, if you have tax problems you go to a tax expert. The same is true in this situation. Crews realise it costs fuel to carry fuel, but it also costs money when you have to divert. It costs a whole lot more if you, as the PIC have to defend your actions on your fuel decision and why you didn't take what in your "professional judgement" the situation dictated.

There are lots of people on this forum, non-pilots, who make very valuable contributions to this forum. Just because I am a pilot I don't have any status that makes me immune form making mistakes. However, I try, in my job, to always to err on the side of caution. If I need additional fuel, or I think I will, I take it. End of story. Luckily all the carriers I have been associated with have never asked for a reason for additional fuel!


User currently offlineEgmcman From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 898 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12145 times:

FR have most to lose if they were in any way found to be unsafe. Despite offering low fares they don't compromise on safety.

User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5003 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12124 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 9):
Have to laugh. Especially at all the "armchair pilots" who give their qualified support to this stupid decision by FR management. I feel much better that they have your support.

Very well said.

Most "non-pilots" just don't get it.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6611 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12066 times:

Absolutely PhilSquares....every if management want to fly the planes then they can. Until then, the commander takes what fuel he/she sees fit. If the pilots are unprofessional enough to take abnormally large amounts of fuel beyond what is reasonably expected then that is a training issue. A professional pilot should be given the scope he/she needs to decide on their own fuel figure. perhaps management should tell pilots what autobrake to use, whether to go left or right past a storm. In an emergency perhaps the first thing on every checklist should be to contact management?

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 12065 times:



Quoting Egmcman (Reply 11):
FR have most to lose if they were in any way found to be unsafe. Despite offering low fares they don't compromise on safety.

No you are wrong. FR has nothing to do with the fuel decision. It's entirely up to the person who puts his signature on the release. That's the Captain.


User currently offlineEgmcman From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 898 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11935 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 14):
No you are wrong. FR has nothing to do with the fuel decision. It's entirely up to the person who puts his signature on the release. That's the Captain

Whilst you are correct in terms of competence I meant as carrier they are safe as any other to fly.

Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 13):
If the pilots are unprofessional enough to take abnormally large amounts of fuel beyond what is reasonably expected then that is a training issue. A professional pilot should be given the scope he/she needs to decide on their own fuel figure

Who makes the decision if fuel cheaper at a particular airport or is there no difference at most airports?


User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5003 posts, RR: 43
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11907 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 14):
It's entirely up to the person who puts his signature on the release. That's the Captain.

And if the aircraft has to declare a low-fuel condition, or a fuel emergency, or has to land short, or crashes three miles shy of the runway killing everyone on board then the Management types all scurry back under their rocks. All you will see from them is their bony fingers pointing directly at the Captain. Who ... if he/she survives, will be standing ALONE.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11884 times:



Quoting Egmcman (Reply 15):
Whilst you are correct in terms of competence I meant as carrier they are safe as any other to fly.

Please show me where I wrote/inferred they weren't safe?

Quoting Egmcman (Reply 15):
Who makes the decision if fuel cheaper at a particular airport or is there no difference at most airports?

Most airlines have computer programs that look at the cost of fuel system wide. If it is cheaper to "tanker" fuel then you do it. From a pilot's perspective, the only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire. So, tankering fuel is not a problem.


User currently offlineEgmcman From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 898 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11739 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Please show me where I wrote/inferred they weren't safe?

I think the article is slightly sensationalist as it suggests pilots are incapable of making decisions with regard to the amount of fuel needed to fly a given route. If you have anything further to add instant msg me.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19233 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11632 times:

The Real Slim Shady, on PPRUNE, is an FR training captain and stated (post 20 on http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ld-wish-prevent-excess-fuel.html):

"I did 4 2hr sectors yesterday from the UK to destinations in Europe and back.

Here are the facts on fuel carried, fuel burnt, fuel reserves and what we landed with. The weather everywhere was CAVOK ( no cloud below 5000ft, no CBs and 10k vis).

Sector 1: Flight Plan Fuel 8104 Kgs. Departure Fuel 11000Kgs ( Tanking sector).
Fuel Reserves 2300Kgs. Arrival Fuel 5400Kgs.

Sector 2: Flight Plan Fuel 7739Kgs. Departure Fuel 7790Kgs. Fuel Reserves 2300Kgs. Arrival Fuel 2700Kgs.

Sector 3: Flight Plan Fuel 8010Kgs. Deparure Fuel 8100Kgs. Fuel Reserves 2300Kgs. Arrival Fuel 3000Kgs.

Sector 4: Flight Plan fuel 7709Kgs. Departure Fuel 7760Kgs. Fuel Reserves 2300Kgs. Arrival Fuel 3000Kgs.

The lowest of the 4 arrival fuels, on engine shutdown, was 2700Kgs, 400Kgs above the minimum required, and enough for 10 minutes holding on top of the 30 minutes final reserve fuel.

The thread and the constant whining about the loco's is tedious. As my colleagues have emphasised if we perceive a need to carry extra fuel because of weather or any other reason we will do so.

Carrying flight plan minimum fuel is not dangerous or foolhardy; it is commercial sense and as many of you SLF have commercial responsibilities to your employer where you use your judgment to make a balanced decision so do we."


[Edited 2008-08-31 06:53:31]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 11223 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
From a pilot's perspective, the only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Or dumping it out the back (if the plane can)?



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6611 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11124 times:

Not sure about other brands but certainly the Boeing i fly can land at maximum takeoff weight. I have heard all Boeing's are like this and I suspect if landed properly, most aircraft are like this. If I had an uncontrollable fire on board I would not hesitate to land the aircraft asap, regardless of whether i was above max landing weight or not. Too many accidents have happened because they were busy dumping fuel which delayed their approach and instead crashed. If you have a serious emergency on board and you land above max landing weight and damage the aircraft then so be it.

User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11077 times:



Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 21):
Too many accidents have happened because they were busy dumping fuel which delayed their approach and instead crashed

SR111 instantly comes to mind



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11077 times:



Quoting LongHauler (Reply 16):
.

Very well said. The sad truth is that this philosophy factors into decision making at many carriers.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7308 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11012 times:

What I don't get is why the professional standard for pilots remains the same, within a lot of companies pilots are in charge on paper only, which is where legality comes in, but for day to day operations, the company is in charge setting:
Duty Hours
Rest hours
Fuel
Block times - what counts as block etc.
Flight plans - altitudes, step climbs etc
Diversion as in whether it can be done, where to go etc. etc.
Maintenance - what qualifies for no go or flight

When a pilot signs his name for the a/c before departure, is this not just a carry over from the good old days and should it not be changed based on the current environments pilots operate in? If the PIC decides he needs extra fuel for the flight and elects to load it, he now has to justify that as his word is no longer the 'main" factor as in "PIC", so why not have these laws amended to hold those responsible for the situations legally liable as well, it would certainely reduce the amount of premiums pilots pay for their insurance.


25 Asturias : I am in complete agreement with you. Whatever FR is doing, whether they are actually only allowing 300kg extra fuel or not, your conclusion is spot o
26 Lightsaber : This was a particular problem at PanAm. While I agree pilots do have the final say, what's wrong with making them put in writing why they are adding
27 PhilSquares : Then why the company policy? Something doesn't make sense. The crew could have landed without dumping anything. The MD-11 is perfectly capable of land
28 Pe@rson : I've had conversations with him. Feel free to PM him. You can nitpick all you want, but he's as likely to be a TC than you are a captain. Of course y
29 Mercure1 : Requiring crew to list an objective reason for carrying more than an arbitrary 300kg of extra fuel doesn't seem unreasonable. If you take more, just h
30 Mm320cap : This is, despite claims to the contrary above, a HUGE deal. I'm not familiar with JAA rules, but the FAA regs say that two people are responsible for
31 LAXintl : Wow - I find it amazing that folks get so worked up and virtually come to conclusions that the airlines are somehow cheating in the area of fuel. Why
32 DashTrash : Those types of accidents are caused by crews not willing to make an overweight landing and spending what time they had to find an airport dumping fue
33 PITIngres : The contentiousness arises because management hasn't made a clear commitment to what they are going to do with the data. It makes sense that manageme
34 FrmrCAPCADET : Is declaring a fuel emergency a professional/regulatory no no. I think that normal risk management would say that out of every 10,000 events (flights)
35 OPNLguy : Your points on professional judgement are well-made, especially since there are different professionals involved in some places.. There's a funny thi
36 Alias1024 : No. A captain's signature indicates that they have reviewed the planning of the dispatcher, and they believe that the flight can be operated safely a
37 PhilSquares : Under EASA/JAA, the PIC is the only one who's head is on the chopping block. That is very similar to what it is like in the rest of the world. Person
38 OPNLguy : Personally, me too. It's that "duality" that makes it work.... There are some (not many) crews out there who erroneously believe that the dispatcher
39 CX flyboy : Carrying less fuel that one deems neccessary for the act of saving $ should not even be a consideration to enter a pilot's mind. Everyone has a diffe
40 Post contains links Luv2cattlecall : You also realize that there are external factors that could cloud their judgement, and take it with a grain of salt - a good example being drug reps
41 FrmrCAPCADET : Certain mishaps in the navy, grounding your ship or colliding with another are career enders, what I was asking, is declaring an emergency (low fuel)
42 Titiserra : Maybe this is to introduce a new policy on ryanair, You can pay 10€ and bring with you 5L of fuel in a bottle...oh no, no liquids in the cabin!!
43 SuseJ772 : Hilarious! And Phil, I'll take your opinion (along with SlamClick) any day over anybody on this site. Thanks for adding your perspective based on exp
44 Burkhard : This article is one of many LCC bashing articles. I think the LCC bashing was well prepared since long and just waited for the sad trigger to be relea
45 PhilSquares : Of course you do know for a fact there were no MEL issues? If one IDG is inop then the APU must be left on in flight. But again I suppose you already
46 Captain.MD-11 : The problem comes (from my experience) when SOME pilots take fuel for taking fuels sake. Now I'm all in favour of having more gas in the tanks, it mak
47 Post contains images Luv2cattlecall : This wasn't just one flight...there was a thread on here awhile back that mentioned US Pilots running the APU as a form of "protest". No...said capta
48 PhilSquares : Show me the facts! What you are providing is anecdotal evidence. You know nothing about any MEL issues. No, you have missed my point. Where does the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
USair Vs. USair Pilots On Fuel posted Tue Jul 15 2008 20:22:58 by Mercure1
Pilots Run Out Of Fuel, Pray, Land Near Jesus Sign posted Wed May 21 2008 21:23:26 by Stealth777
Ryanair Threatens Pilots With Demotion posted Wed Feb 7 2007 15:16:12 by Bongodog1964
Ryanair Pilots Want Higher Wages posted Mon Oct 9 2006 21:51:39 by PlaneHunter
Ryanair Blasts The Latest BA Fuel Surcharge posted Tue Apr 18 2006 20:21:46 by Door5Right
Ryanair Pilots Consider New Rostering Deal (FI) posted Tue Mar 14 2006 15:58:09 by Lapper
Ryanair Pilots To Sue.......... posted Tue Aug 2 2005 10:50:06 by Eirjet
No Free Coffee For RyanAir Pilots? posted Mon Mar 14 2005 20:37:47 by Icefern
Ryanair Hit By Soaring Fuel Costs posted Mon Jan 31 2005 12:30:10 by FlyBeQ400
Pilots: How Do You Save Fuel? posted Wed May 19 2004 21:30:50 by Startknob
No Free Coffee For RyanAir Pilots? posted Mon Mar 14 2005 20:37:47 by Icefern
Ryanair Hit By Soaring Fuel Costs posted Mon Jan 31 2005 12:30:10 by FlyBeQ400
Pilots: How Do You Save Fuel? posted Wed May 19 2004 21:30:50 by Startknob
USair Vs. USair Pilots On Fuel posted Tue Jul 15 2008 20:22:58 by Mercure1
Pilots Run Out Of Fuel, Pray, Land Near Jesus Sign posted Wed May 21 2008 21:23:26 by Stealth777
Ryanair Threatens Pilots With Demotion posted Wed Feb 7 2007 15:16:12 by Bongodog1964
Ryanair Pilots Want Higher Wages posted Mon Oct 9 2006 21:51:39 by PlaneHunter
Ryanair Blasts The Latest BA Fuel Surcharge posted Tue Apr 18 2006 20:21:46 by Door5Right
Ryanair Pilots Consider New Rostering Deal (FI) posted Tue Mar 14 2006 15:58:09 by Lapper
Ryanair Pilots To Sue.......... posted Tue Aug 2 2005 10:50:06 by Eirjet
No Free Coffee For RyanAir Pilots? posted Mon Mar 14 2005 20:37:47 by Icefern
Ryanair Hit By Soaring Fuel Costs posted Mon Jan 31 2005 12:30:10 by FlyBeQ400
Pilots: How Do You Save Fuel? posted Wed May 19 2004 21:30:50 by Startknob