I just read this on 7-online (www.7online.com) here in NYC. Interesting article. Any ideas which airline?

Airlines risking your safety to conserve fuel?Eyewitness News Exclusive
Eyewitness News' Jim Hoffer
(New York - WABC, November 6, 2007) - Eyewitness News has a disturbing report about airlines cutting back on their cushion of extra fuel all in an attempt to save money.

The Investigators spent months looking into this and found some commercial pilots are now under increasing pressure to fly with minimum fuel. At least at one airport in our area, it has led to an increase in emergency landings.

Underlying this entire investigation is this simple fact: In the past 20 months, the cost of jet fuel has skyrocketed by 38 percent.
So, cash-strapped airlines are doing whatever they can to cut back on fuel. But our investigation has found this could be putting passengers at risk.


A commercial plane entering New York airspace contacts air traffic control to tell them they're running low on fuel:
Pilot: "We are minimum fuel sir."
Air Traffic Control: "You're declaring emergency at this time, time is 22:57 ... I need souls on board and when you arrive."
Pilot: "157 souls on board, we have exactly 38 minutes of fuel remaining."
ATC: "38 minutes of fuel ... that is an emergency."

Controllers gave the plane priority landing last April. It safely touched down with just minutes of fuel remaining.

Our examination of thousands of airport operational logs, air traffic tapes and interviews with pilots and controllers reveal airlines may be pushing the margin of safety by cutting back on the amount of fuel per flight, possibly putting passengers at risk.

Take the case of Newark Liberty International, where in a six month period in 2005 just five flights landed under minimum or low fuel conditions. Compare that to a similar period in 2007 in which 73 flights came into Newark with minimum fuel.

Perhaps most disturbing, an additional 10 flights had to declare the more serious emergency fuel situation -- meaning they needed to land immediately or they risked running out of gas.

"I had one just last week that happened," Air traffic controller Ray Adams said.

Adams says in the past two years he's noticed an astounding increase in the number of flights coming into Newark under minimum or emergency fuel conditions.

"When aircraft come into our airport ... with minimum fuel state they become a priority for us and it's an extra focus of attention on that aircraft which increases the complexity of your already complex operation," Adams said.

The FAA requires airlines to carry additional fuel in case of unexpected delays. But pilots we spoke to say some airlines are putting pressure on them to cut back on this fuel safety cushion to save money.

Jim Hoffer: "At one point you were called on the carpet for carrying too much fuel?"
Bruce Meyer, pilot: "I was specifically called in and asked why I was adding fuel as many times as I had been adding which I had to explain the reasons which were air traffic control delays that I knew about every morning."

Veteran commercial airline pilot Bruce Meyer retired last year. He says the competing pressures to carry less fuel at a time when there are more and more in-flight delays forced him to fudge the numbers to maintain safety.

"I had to use different rouses to make the paperwork or hide the fact that I was putting fuel on board but my responsibility as captain is to my passengers, my aircraft, my crew and to the safety of that flight," Meyer said.

Captain Meyer's case is hardly isolated. Anonymous reports we've obtained from NASA's aviation safety reporting system shows pilots all around the country concerned that pressure to conserve fuel is compromising safety.

One pilot says his airline's "fuel saving program takes preference over safety." Another writes, "It's a case of dice rolling at its most dangerous."

"They're taking away the margin of safety," said former NTSB Chairman James Hall.

James Hall, who spent seven years as head of the National Transportation Safety Board, says our investigation should not be ignored.

"Seeing numbers like that the FAA administrators should be calling the airlines in on the carpet and find out what's going on," Hall said.

The FAA declined an interview for this story. In a statement to us, the agency said it only tracks emergency fuel landings, not minimum fuel.

The agency representing airlines also declined an interview, but did say it has confidence in the FAA's fuel reserve standards.

Just food for thought!

The phrase minimum fuel does not itself constitute an emergency condition. The phrase according to the 7110.65 glossary is defined as "an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination can accept little or no delay". IMHO, safety is not compromised with minimum fuel, the crew should be alert to the developing situation and not wait until this example:

Quoting AAJFKSJUBKLYN (Thread starter): A commercial plane entering New York airspace contacts air traffic control to tell them they're running low on fuel: Pilot: "We are minimum fuel sir." Air Traffic Control: "You're declaring emergency at this time, time is 22:57 ... I need souls on board and when you arrive." Pilot: "157 souls on board, we have exactly 38 minutes of fuel remaining." ATC: "38 minutes of fuel ... that is an emergency."

I'd say the controller called it exactly what it was, an emergency and the phrase I would think the crew would have used was emergency fuel not minimum fuel.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1): I'd say the controller called it exactly what it was, an emergency and the phrase I would think the crew would have used was emergency fuel not minimum fuel.

The control themselves can not declare an emergency and until the pilot declares it, the controller doesn't have to do anything outside normal protocol.


The reason why the pilot didn't not flat out say "Emergency" is because he/she would have been wrapped up in paper work and the FAA would be screaming at he/she because they allowed the for the flight to be dispatched when they thought the fuel wasn't sufficient.

Remember that November is sweeps month. You're going to see all kinds of BS stories from the stations in an effort to boost ratings.

What's unsafe about a Jetlink ERJ doing a few laps in a hold somewhere over eastern PA, then diverting to ABE for fuel before continuing to EWR? It's not like they're Gimli-Gliding across the Lehigh Valley into ABE.

Quoting Skyexramper (Reply 2): The control themselves can not declare an emergency

Yes, they can. You may refer to FAA Order 7110.65 online if you wish.

Quoting AAJFKSJUBKLYN (Thread starter): Eyewitness News has a disturbing report about airlines cutting back on their cushion of extra fuel all in an attempt to save money. The Investigators spent months looking into this and found some commercial pilots are now under increasing pressure to fly with minimum fuel. At least at one airport in our area, it has led to an increase in emergency landings.

I have no doubt that airlines are cutting back their fuel cushion to save cash. I don't see anything anywhere in this article that would suggest that represents a safety threat. By law, they can't go below the minimum reserves anyway and no ATC is going to deny an aircraft below reserves a priority landing slot.

Tom.

I can tell you that as a Dispatcher working for a carrier that deals with the Northeast, one thing I never do is skimp on fuel. I have seen too many problems in the northeast, and given the choice between safety and cost savings I will choose fuel every time.

One thing I will say is given the airspace is so congested, ATC gets real mad if you file non preferred routes. However, often times they will give you reroutes without realizing what your fuel situation is, and this runs us pretty close to min fuel. I had a DCA-ORD flight a little more than a year ago, and while airborne we got rerouted way over to STL and onto the BDF arrival when we were filed on the Kokomo arrival (Which is now something else). This took more fuel and we barely had the fuel to make it work. However everytime we told Kansas City center this, they did absolutely nothing to help us out, and we nearly declared a fuel emergency. Luckily Chicago center helped us out, and we didn't have to go that route. But let me tell you, CRJ's don't give you much room to play with because if you fuel for a reroute and then you are given a more direct routing, you will be overweight at your destination, but if you fuel for the direct route, then you will really be min fuel with any sort of reroute. Its a Catch 22.

One thing that does worry me is that I have looked at Releases of some of the other carriers. I have not seen one Mesa release that didn't have a zero in the hold fuel, and some of the other carriers are the same way. That does worry me. I know it may be so that you can use it for either taxi or enroute delays, but there has to be some point at which you want some cushion, because taking off with just BAR and nothing more, means you are almost min fuel from wheels up. Thats a situation I myself would not want to be in.

What your "Eyewitness News Investigation" didn't tell you was that that plane was holding for 45 minutes because of flow control into it's destination. What it also failed to tell you was what the conditions at the time were. A little bit of wind yesterday meant I was sitting on the ground for two hours becuase ORD had a flow program implimented. They couldn't conduct LAHSO. The report also fails to mention how much flights have increased in the last few years clogging the eastern seaboard even more.

There are a lot of ways we can save fuel without being unsafe. Single engine taxi, shutting down the APU early, staying up at cruise longer and doing a flight idle descent, and so on. Even a cheap-ass airline like Mesa isn't going to do something that constitutes safety and I know plenty of captains that would rather loose their job by refusing a flight because of safety than risk it.

Quoting Skyexramper (Reply 2): The control themselves can not declare an emergency and until the pilot declares it,

Respecfully I have to correct you, a controller can declare an emergency at anytime in any situation as Spree refers.

Quoting Skyexramper (Reply 2): The reason why the pilot didn't not flat out say "Emergency" is because he/she would have been wrapped up in paper work

Really, you know that first hand? I assure you when someone says they have 38 minutes of fuel left and does not delcare an emergency, that gets the spot lights pretty much focused on them more than had the acutal event been handled in the appropriate manner. Let's see, paperwork or run out of gas, what sounds easier to explain if you are lucky enough to not crash?