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.

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.

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.

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!

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,

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Quoting mayor (Reply 11):

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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"...   

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 24): 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.

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 fuel..... but is a flight with a long holding pattern and a Missed Approach "normal" ?? And the crew failed miserably in their task of making clear enough to ATC the fuel situation they were in....

Rgds.
G.

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

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'.  

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 "min fuel" if we anticipate landing with less than 4000 lbs and "Emergency fuel" if less than 3000 lbs. I question why they diverted 260 nm to Sao Luiz with such a low fuel state. I realize this may be a remote area of Brasil, and that may explain it. A quick scan shows Maraba and a few other airports much closer but possibly weather/lack of instrument approach precluded them as a possibility. Yikes.

I wonder what portion of that 1200 lbs is unusable...

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.

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 30): 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.

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]

The minimum amount of fuel required only applies to the right main tank, at least on the 737-200.

Anyone?

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.

After flying in the Jumpseat of MX and AM I believe it... I haven seen even more weird things...this? No biggie!

Quoting Revo1059 (Reply 5): There was a TAESA 73 years ago at ORD that when it pulled into the gate had ~700lbs left.

Never flew on the Cabin of a Taesa Aircraft or a regular flight for that matter (way too scared by "incidents")

I flew from Mex to Lax lat november 22, and they had fog at L.A. could not land and diverted to TIJ we did a very long diversion and aproach at both LAX AND TIJ.... I was scared... wondered all the time about the reserves... and after feeling the REALLY FIRM landing in TIJ, I dont want to know how much fuel we had....we refueled in TIJ.



TRB

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 30): If so, that relates to ground operation of the electric hydrolic pumps.

Well they gotta land at some point and use them

Different countries have different fuel requirements.

In the US, domestic flights have to have trip fuel to destination, alternate fuel (where an alternate is required) , and 45 minutes at normal cruise (which is not realistic in my view, as the aircraft is usually at a lower altitude than normal cruise). In addition they usually have any hold fuel for ATC and weather delays, and may be carrying extra for long taxi times, or for freighting extra fuel if it is cost effective. Of course, the airplane has to be within weight limits and this can restrict how much fuel is carried. Fuel is also normally calculated according to the planned weight of the aircraft.

The Captain is allowed to use the trip fuel, the hold fuel, attempt an approach at the destination, execute a missed approach, then divert to the alternate, make a missed approach at the alternate and still land with less then reserve fuel and no emergency declaration is required. As long as the flight is planned correctly, then it is legal. However, as noted above, there are companies that have policies about declaring "minimum fuel", which is NOT an emergency but advises ATC that the flight can take no further delay without diverting, for example. An emergency could also be declared at the Captain's discretion if he/she feels the fuel remaining is too low for safety of flight and they want the aircraft on the ground as soon as possible. ATC will then give all priority and assistance to that flight. Again, some companies require an emergency be declared when fuel reaches a certain low state.

Other countries have a requirement that as soon as the Captain knows that the fuel to arrive at destination (or alternate) will be less than 30 minutes (holding at 1500 feet), then they MUST declare an emergency.

But do things happen in the real world which ignore these rules and have aircraft landing with less than these requirements? Yes, in my experience. Sometimes people try to stretch it a bit too far and get away with it. Others, like Avianca 52, do not.

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 33): Well they gotta land at some point and use them

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 was the case in the GOL incident). Since that requirement is to allow for cooling of the electric hyd pumps during ground operations, you could simply turn off the the elec pumps after landing. I doubt the GOL crew considered that as they were still probably sweating some bullets. The good news is the elec overheat annunciation would let you know if they were in fact getting hot from a lack of fuel cooling, and you could just turn them off then.

Quoting Jpax (Reply 21): 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.

        

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 flamed out. 73 people died; standardized phraseology is there to save lives.

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.

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 not to. After landing the engines flamed out between the runway and terminal.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 37): 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 not to. After landing the engines flamed out between the runway and terminal.

It's embarrassing on the final lap of a car race. It's dangerous in an aircraft.

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. Thankfully, LEB had a long enough runway because it took a LONG time to get into the air. 'I learned about flying from that'!

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 37): Well I cannot comment on this but there is a famous incident involving a BA concorde

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 miles and landed in Lajes without power : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 ).

But, how well or bad will be a Concorde trying to glide ? With that wing specifically designed for SS speeds, my bet is it will fall like a rock....

Rgds.
G.

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)

Dependant upon the fuel uplift on departure, and the weather conditions across the Atlantic, the reserve of fuel remaining for an aborted landing can vary, but it is generally required to land with a minimum of 4 tonnes of fuel in 9 tank, (which is the trim tank furthest forward of the aircraft center line), and around 1.5 tonnes of fuel in each of the four collector tanks, (these are the fuel tanks that supply the engines directly).

The 4 tonnes of fuel required in 9 tank upon landing are required to balance the aircraft on its undercarriage on the ground, otherwise, with the weight of the four engines aft of the centre of gravity, the aircraft has a tendency to want to tip onto its tail... very embarrassing.

Unfortunately Trident Man, this was the case with Captain Brian Warpole, who was then General Manager of Concorde. He had a technical defect with his secondary air doors on the inbound flight to LHR which caused a higher fuel-burn than normal. Usually, if this is the case, the aircraft will make a landing at Shannon to reful the aircraft sufficiently to allow its return to LHR with a reserve for emergencies. Captain Warpole's flight was also the BA004 which was due to land at LHR around 10:30 p.m. which meant that if he dirverted to Shannon to refuel, he would miss the opportunity of landing at LHR until the foillowing morning as the airport would effectively be closed after he had become airborne.
For this reason, Captian Warpole decided that he had just sufficient fuel to continue his flight to LHR, but would have no reserve, and despite the advice of his First Officer and Flight Engineer, this is exactly what Captain Warpole did.

At the board of enquiry, Captain Warpole was determined guilty of endangering the lives of his passengers and his aircraft, and he was subsequently dismissed by British Airways.

In reality, he 'got-away-with-it', but things could have gone terribly wrong for him if circumstances were different from the straight-line approach he requested, and had been given by ATC, and the very fact that his engines started to run-down immediately he turned his aircraft off the runway after landing.
As it was, Captain Warpole had to request that the passengers in the rear cabin of his aircraft would stand in the forward cabin to balance the aircraft while a fuel bowser was requested to fill tank 9 with sufficient fuel to prevent the aircraft from tipping up on its tail.
Had the passengers actually know at the time that thier aircraft landed on empty tanks, I believe things for Captian Warpole would have been much, much worse.

There is a moral to this story for all you budding pilots - and it is always think FIRST as a pilot and consider the safety of your passengers and your aircraft, and put your commercial decisions secondly. Captain Warpole became too aware of the cost implications of landing at Shannon and having to fund his passengers for a nights accommodation in a hotel and the cost of extra fuel, etc., and NOT the safety of his passengers and aircraft foremost, and this, unfortunately was his down-fall.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 41): Here is a bit more detail on the BA concorde incident

Thank you Boysteve !! Very interesting ( and a little frightening ) story.

The engines quitting just after turning into the taxiway.... amazing !!    

Rgds.
G.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 41): 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...ge=2)

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 42): Thank you Boysteve !! Very interesting ( and a little frightening ) story. The engines quitting just after turning into the taxiway.... amazing !! Rgds. G.

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 later we have a rebuttal by a user named Bellerophon (presumably the same Bellerophon as is a member here.

Bellerophon's post concludes with:

"Im not by any means suggesting that this was the Concorde fleets finest hour, but this post contains several factual inaccuracies and some assumptions which are stated as facts. It isnt worth a detailed rebuttal, nor do I intend to get drawn into debate over it, but it would be unwise to draw any conclusions from this report.

Suffice it to say that it might have been a tad more convincing had the name of the Captain been correct.

Or perhaps, bearing in mind UK libel laws, its just as well it wasnt!  "

I would take Bellerophon's version as accurate, given his unquestionable credentials, personal experience and knowledge of these matters and individuals (Gonzalo, I believe you have him on you RR list already - like me).

Cheers,

YYZYYT

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 43): I would take Bellerophon's version as accurate, given his unquestionable credentials, personal experience and knowledge of these matters and individuals

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 about the post of Bellerophon. It would be nice if he can confirm its "copyrights" about that other forum.
I would send a PM to him and see what he says...

Rgds.
G.

The plane landed safely. There was fuel left over. This is what fuel reserves are for.

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 45): The plane landed safely. There was fuel left over. This is what fuel reserves are for.

That is absolutely not what reserves are for. Landing on fumes? Being reckless with lives? Better call dispatch and let them know.

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 place 269nm away.
If they would have done that, not really an issue, e.g landing w/ 1.6t vs. 500kgs.

I have heard the Brazilian CAA has some conservative requirements for Brazilian carriers to utilize alternates >150nm away. Perhaps in this situation, ignoring that requirement would have been safer?

201302060400 METAR SBMA 060400Z 26002KT 9999 FEW010 24/24 Q1012=
201302060300 METAR SBMA 060300Z 25002KT CAVOK 24/24 Q1011=
201302060200 METAR SBMA 060200Z 24001KT CAVOK 24/24 Q1011=
201302060100 METAR SBMA 060100Z 27003KT CAVOK 25/25 Q1011=