Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GOL 737 Lands With 550Kg/1210lbs of Fuel Remaining  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19143 times:

Looking into the reports of incidents recently released, I came across this incident where a G3 Boeing 737 700 went around two times, then diverted to an alternate airport, and landed with just 1210 lbs of fuel remaining.
Giving the plane was carrying only 52 pax one can think, what would happened with a higher load factor ? And How close were they to an engine flame out due to fuel starvation ?


http://avherald.com/h?article=45ffd451&opt=0


Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 18765 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Giving the plane was carrying only 52 pax one can think, what would happened with a higher load factor ?

With a higher load factor their weight would have increased as well as their fuel burn, so they would have carried more fuel.

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
How close were they to an engine flame out due to fuel starvation ?

Just get out the 737-700 performance charts on fuel burn and you'll find out.

Technically all aircraft are fueled in order to fly to the destination, carry out one go around, go to the alternate and land. And there is a bit of extra carried on board just in case. In this case they needed both trip + alternate fuel and they burned off a bit more for the second approach into their destination. I know it sounds scary to land with less fuel but it actually shows good planning and its whats expected, it's just that it doesn't happen that often that an aircraft has to use up much of its reserves, but the fact that they landed without incident is proof that their fuel planning was done effectively.

Now the problem arises when you work for a LCC that makes it a point of pride and competition to carry less fuel, putting everyone on board in danger especially if the pilot is one of those that always wants to be first in everything he does, or if you end up in a crappy situation (i.e. bad wx) with a lot of other planes that all need to use the same facility and all declare fuel emergencies at the same time.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 18719 times:

I knew a guy once that flew on Mexicana 727 from MEX-SAT............on approach, #1 flamed out.......on touchdown, #2 flamed out and #3 died on rollout.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1106 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 18350 times:

Based on 100 lbs a minute, which is an A320 gouge for holding and approach...about 12 minutes.

Landed a DC-8-62 at SFO after a 11 hour non-stop from LGW with about 20 minutes fuel remaining. Let's just say it wasn't my idea!


User currently offlineolli From Mexico, joined Mar 2001, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14630 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
I knew a guy once that flew on Mexicana 727 from MEX-SAT............on approach, #1 flamed out.......on touchdown, #2 flamed out and #3 died on rollout.

I don´t have my facts together, but I highly doubt it.

My half-brother flew for Mexicana for almost 30 years, and never knew about than incident.

Best Regards,


User currently offlineRevo1059 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14197 times:

There was a TAESA 73 years ago at ORD that when it pulled into the gate had ~700lbs left.

User currently offlineflight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3401 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13743 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 1):
Technically all aircraft are fueled in order to fly to the destination, carry out one go around, go to the alternate and land.

Technically, no. Not all aircraft have an alternate all the time, especially if the weather is good at the destination.

Either way, 1200 pounds is extremely low; I would have hoped the crew declared an emergency.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13250 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That was not a good day, but proves why there are reserves. Was is the civilian equivalent of 'BINGO?'

Better than Avianca flight 52.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52

Quoting olli (Reply 4):
My half-brother flew for Mexicana for almost 30 years, and never knew about than incident.

I think he was referring to the wrong airline.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
I knew a guy once that flew on Mexicana 727 from MEX-SAT............on approach, #1 flamed out.......on touchdown, #2 flamed out and #3 died on rollout.

I once flew on a MX 727 MEX-Harlingen and we did two go-arounds. Pretty steep and powerful both of them, then diverted to MTY. Fog thick as soup, never saw the ground. This was in 1982.

Quoting olli (Reply 4):
I don´t have my facts together, but I highly doubt it.

My half-brother flew for Mexicana for almost 30 years, and never knew about than incident.

Best Regards,

Never heard of that.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
I think he was referring to the wrong airline.

I have a vague recollection of a similar event but it was another airline. Wasn´t it the PA 747 that was going to JFK but ended up diverting to EWR AND had taken off from IAH with a fuel miscalculation? In any case, definitely not MX.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11592 times:

Quoting olli (Reply 4):
Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
I knew a guy once that flew on Mexicana 727 from MEX-SAT............on approach, #1 flamed out.......on touchdown, #2 flamed out and #3 died on rollout.

I don´t have my facts together, but I highly doubt it.

My half-brother flew for Mexicana for almost 30 years, and never knew about than incident.

All I know is that this guy was a non-rev on the flight. Because of what happened, he had to find an alternate way to get back because he didn't want to fly MX, again.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mayor (Reply 9):
he had to find an alternate way to get back because he didn't want to fly MX, again.

He probably got his airlines mixed up.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11270 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 10):
Quoting mayor (Reply 9):
he had to find an alternate way to get back because he didn't want to fly MX, again.

He probably got his airlines mixed up.

Who else would fly MEX-SAT? This was back in the 80s.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinegulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10589 times:

To out that into perspective, that's roundabout the weight of an average racehorse.


I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10108 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mayor (Reply 11):

Eastern Airlines flew MEX-SAT during the 80s, I believe.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10030 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 13):
Eastern Airlines flew MEX-SAT during the 80s, I believe.

Well, as I recall, he specifically mentioned MX.......or could it have been Aeromexico?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mayor (Reply 14):
Well, as I recall, he specifically mentioned MX.......or could it have been Aeromexico?

He could have said MX, in which case he would have been mistaken. I don´t believe AM ever flew that route.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9009 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
That was not a good day, but proves why there are reserves. Was is the civilian equivalent of 'BINGO?'

That would be "Request priority-low fuel." And don't think there won't be paperwork to fill out once you're on the ground   Worst case, you can always turn the transponder knobs to 7700 if you think you're not getting the attention that you need from ATC...and once again, there will some 'splainin to do.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8804 times:

This is why reserves are loaded. So you can do two go arounds, divert and land safely without crashing. You don't need to land with reserves, but you might need reserves to land.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineadriaticus From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1137 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8318 times:

Many years ago (IIRC, 1999) I jumpseated in a MX A320 ORD>MEX. The a/c was full to the last seat, the bellies full of luggage as well. A very cold morning departure with thick fog created heavy traffic, and thus we taxied for almost an hour. Fearing the fuel wouldn't be enough, the captain started crunching numbers for consumption and turned engine #2 off, so we taxied with #1 for more than 45 minutes. He turned #2 on 5 minutes before actual take off. After departure, he kept monitoring for a possible refuel stop either in TAM or PAZ, but we went ahead to MEX. He made our situation very clear to ATC and we were given priority to land. Upon arriving at the gate he commented we could have been airborne only for "5, 8 more minutes max"...   


A300/18/19/20/21 B721/2 B732/3/G/8 B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 DC8/9/10 MD11 TU134/154 IL62/86 An24 SA340/2000 E45/90
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7953 times:

Quoting adriaticus (Reply 18):
Upon arriving at the gate he commented we could have been airborne only for "5, 8 more minutes max"

Please excuse my ignorance.... is this legal ?? Is not a Tech Stop or at least a Declaration of Fuel Emergency mandatory for this levels of LOW FUEL in a passenger jet ?? I mean, 5 to 8 minutes is clearly not enough if they had a last minute call for Go Around due to a slow traffic, a runway incursion or whatever....

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1894 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7848 times:

Does it state in the regulations how much fuel needs to be in the tanks after diverting to the alternate and landing?


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineJpax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7562 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 16):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
That was not a good day, but proves why there are reserves. Was is the civilian equivalent of 'BINGO?'

That would be "Request priority-low fuel." And don't think there won't be paperwork to fill out once you're on the ground Worst case, you can always turn the transponder knobs to 7700 if you think you're not getting the attention that you need from ATC...and once again, there will some 'splainin to do.

Not entirely the wording you would want to use. "Request priority-low fuel" is not the same as saying "Min fuel" or "Minimum fuel." Don't expect ATC to read your mind by using non-standard terminology. "Bingo" is used at my airline as the amount of fuel required to fly from say, a hold, to our destination, then to our furthest alternate, then 45 minutes after that at normal cruise speed and fuel consumption. It is entirely different than divert or reserve fuel.

Also, you seem to be confusing "Request priority-low fuel" with a "fuel emergency." Again, entirely different animals. A fuel emergency comes after declaring min fuel. You wouldn't have to 7700 if you used the proper terminology and sequence of events to start with. Two entirely different uses.

Lastly, who cares about the paperwork? Or "'splainin to do?" ATC is there for YOU, don't let them fly your airplane. Paperwork is better than the motors getting quiet. You seem more worried about the paperwork than actually flying the plane.

[Edited 2013-04-02 18:15:35]

User currently offlineadriaticus From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1137 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7465 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 19):
Quoting adriaticus (Reply 18):
Upon arriving at the gate he commented we could have been airborne only for "5, 8 more minutes max"

Please excuse my ignorance.... is this legal ??
Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 20):
Does it state in the regulations how much fuel needs to be in the tanks after diverting to the alternate and landing?

I don't know it's mandatory to "declare an emergency", nor if there's an actual mandatory minimum amount of fuel to be left in the tanks, but I would presume not. This is, probably both situations are legally regulated, but there wouldn't be an obligation to actually make the declaration, nor to have an actual amount of fuel left in the tanks. The difference is subtle, but important.

Also, the statement about the remaining flying time could have been some sort of bragging on the part of the FP, without a strict supporting calculation. The actual amount in Kgs of fuel left in the tanks was not mentioned. But the tension in the cockpit could be very clearly felt. And the captain did discuss the sitaution at lenght with ATC. Without saying the words "I'm declaring emergency" it was very clear this was no joke.

__Ad.



A300/18/19/20/21 B721/2 B732/3/G/8 B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 DC8/9/10 MD11 TU134/154 IL62/86 An24 SA340/2000 E45/90
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6486 times:

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 20):
Does it state in the regulations how much fuel needs to be in the tanks after diverting to the alternate and landing?

No.

All of the planning for reserves and alternates - if any - are just that, a plan. There is no requirement to land with reserves still on board (at the destination or alternate). It's the decision of the crew, with the final responsibility resting on the Captain, when to divert. It's always smart to plan a "Bingo" fuel; "Bingo" being the minimum fuel before heading towards an alternate (planned or not).

In any case, 1210 pounds is very little fuel, roughly 10-12 minutes. As I recall, the least fuel I ever landed a 737 with was 5,200 (a full 737-800) and I wasn't at all happy about that.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6430 times:

As for there being a mandatoy amount of fuel left in the tanks that cracks me up, reminds me of my PPL check ride when the examiner asked me: "If you want to use your reserve fuel do you need to call up the CAA to ask permission?" That question shocked me, I promptly answered, "of course not, I'm not going to switch my engine off and wait on hold until someone gets to my call." But I couldn't believe that he had had other candidates that couldn't answer that question. Of course, there doesn't need to be a mandatory amount, i.e. all the fuel can be used, you don't need to switch the engines off while you still have fuel in the tanks :P. However, there are certain levels at which, if you land with less there will be investigations. The aviation community need to make sure that planes are not put in a situation ever where they simply run out of fuel and crash. So all cases of low fuel states have to be investigated to ensure there isn't a problem with flight planning standards, fuel classifications etc.

As far as I know there has never been a case of a fully functioning plane, having been fueled correctly, simply running out of fuel during a normal flight and crashing. Especially not in the last 40 years or so. The one's that have run out have done so for other reasons, fuel leaks, incorrect fuel load, other emergencies to deal with etc.

[Edited 2013-04-04 01:05:44 by wilco737]

25 Post contains images Gonzalo : I 'm not sure about that. You could be right. Or not . Avianca 52 was a perfectly fine 707, was fueled correctly, and crashed after running out of fu
26 Post contains images mayor : Just as an FYI........I worked for DL for 33+ years and I'm sure that there were incidents around the system that I never heard of. Just sayin'.
27 Barney Captain : 1200 lbs is frightenly low fuel. For comparison, our planned minimum arrival fuel is never less than 5000 lbs. Our Ops Specs require us to declare "mi
28 cornutt : I wonder what portion of that 1200 lbs is unusable...
29 seven3seven : Actually there is a minimum amount of fuel which must be in the wing tanks at all times in a 737. I'll leave it to you to figure out how much and why.
30 Barney Captain : Maybe you're referring to the magical 1675 number? If so, that relates to ground operation of the electric hydrolic pumps.[Edited 2013-04-03 21:32:32
31 maxpower1954 : The minimum amount of fuel required only applies to the right main tank, at least on the 737-200. Anyone?
32 TheRedBaron : After flying in the Jumpseat of MX and AM I believe it... I haven seen even more weird things...this? No biggie! Never flew on the Cabin of a Taesa A
33 seven3seven : Well they gotta land at some point and use them
34 kellmark : Different countries have different fuel requirements. In the US, domestic flights have to have trip fuel to destination, alternate fuel (where an alte
35 Barney Captain : Sure, but if you're landing with less than 1675 in each tank - things have gone seriously wrong and there are other things to worry about first (as w
36 Post contains images OB1504 : The crew of Avianca flight 52 in 1990 kept requesting priority for low fuel but never declared a fuel emergency... not even when all four engines fla
37 Boysteve : Well I cannot comment on this but there is a famous incident involving a BA concorde at LHR. It 'should' of diverted for fuel but the captain chose n
38 ikramerica : It's embarrassing on the final lap of a car race. It's dangerous in an aircraft.
39 rwy04lga : In 1986, I landed my Cessna 152 at POU and refueled 24.9 gallons...into a 25 gallon tank. I had neglected to set magnetos back to 'both' during runup.
40 Post contains links Gonzalo : WOW !! Very scary stuff !!! When you have a flame out in a conventional aircraft, you still can glide ( Air Transat 236 did this for 65 nautical mile
41 Post contains links Boysteve : Here is a bit more detail on the BA concorde incident (copied and pasted I'm afraid from; http://lcguild.yuku.com/topic/3054/t/Engine-Out.html?page=2)
42 Gonzalo : Thank you Boysteve !! Very interesting ( and a little frightening ) story. The engines quitting just after turning into the taxiway.... amazing !! Rg
43 Post contains images YYZYYT : I would view the details posted with some scepticism. That narrative is copied from a post, by a "guest", to that Concorde SST forum. Several posts l
44 Gonzalo : Absolutely. I agree with you 100 %. I guess I was a little overexcited when reading the story and didn't check the other posts, I didn't realize abou
45 mrocktor : The plane landed safely. There was fuel left over. This is what fuel reserves are for.
46 Jpax : That is absolutely not what reserves are for. Landing on fumes? Being reckless with lives? Better call dispatch and let them know.
47 mercure1 : The interesting thing, Marabá Airport (SBMA) is only 111nm west (23min) of Imperatriz. So why not divert there vs. trying to stretch things to a plac
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...
UA To Retrofit 737 Fleet With "Scimitar" Winglets posted Tue Jan 15 2013 06:39:58 by catiii
1st 737 Lands At Troll Research Statn. Antarctica posted Tue Dec 4 2012 08:34:49 by Mortyman
Are There Any 737-400's With Winglets? posted Tue Apr 10 2012 20:15:33 by flaps30
Bahamasair To Replace 737-200s With -500s? posted Tue Mar 20 2012 20:17:49 by SXDFC
DL Plane Lands With Passenger In Lav posted Sun Dec 4 2011 17:15:47 by L1011
Presenting UA/CO New 737-800 With Sky Interior posted Wed Dec 29 2010 11:10:24 by etops1
AS 737-800's With "Lei" Livery Reg. Numbers posted Sun Feb 21 2010 09:07:27 by B-HOX
Boeing 737/727 With 5-Abreast Cabin Layout posted Mon Oct 19 2009 00:06:18 by Vfw614
GOL 737's Out Of Livery At Opa Locka posted Fri Oct 2 2009 21:29:02 by HaveBlue
Ryanair 737 Lands On Taxiway At CAG posted Sun Apr 12 2009 05:34:56 by Beagleboys