I flew from IAH-SLC on Thursday on a CO MD-80. About an hour before landing, they told us they had to stop for fuel in Grand Junction, CO for fuel because we burned too much flying through turbulence. I have flown hundreds of times and have never had this happen. Also, the turbulence while bad, was not for very long or too much out of the ordinary. We also did not seem to change altitude that much during this. Are airlines really cutting it that close to reduce the weight to save money to the point they cannot handle a little turbulence, or did someone screw-up on fueling and not want to admit it?

Houston to Salt Lake isn't very far. On an old Olympic 747-200 from Singapore to Athens, we had to land in Dubai for fuel, but that sector was pretty marginal for a packed 747 classic departing on a hot night.

Back when RK operated the A300-600 between DKR and JFK, they routinely had to stop Westbound in SAL if there were forcasts for strong headwinds.

I had the same thing happen to me when flying DL from PHL to SLC. We had to sit on the taxiway for over 1.5 hrs in PHL due to weather. Even though the pilots shut the engines down after about 30 min, we still had to divert to MCI while en-route to get more fuel.

I am not a dispatcher-perhaps someone who is can answer this best. I don't think it is that uncommon to have a flight flagstop for fuel. There are weather+wind conditions, re-routing that can effect fuel burn. Even then the AC should have enough in their reserves, but I believe they are legally required to get more fuel in order to ensure they land with the minimum legally required. Also some airlines do go with minimums for cost purposes and I have seen this backfire.

I am no dispatcher either, but a couple months back I was working a Freedom flight that I believe was going to PDX from PHX, the weather was bad enough up there that due to our alternate airports distance from PDX, we could take 64 pax and no bags (CRJ-700) in order to carry the required fuel for the trip, well we certainly weren't going to send all the pax and no bags so we took fuel off the plane, loaded all the bags and pax, and if my memory serves me correctly the CR7 stopped in OAK for fuel before continuing on to PDX. So I guess airlines may divert planes for fuel just so they can get all the passengers and bags where they need to go without having to go through the hassle of rerouting pax and bags.
Cheers  

Believe me, no airline wants to stop for fuel. It kills their operating costs as well as scheduling. If you have a very full aircraft, that would limit fuel load. Then with ground delays, air traffic re-routing and turbulence, the margin of safety can go away.

It is unusual. You are required by law (in the US) to have enough fuel to get to destination, and enough extra for certain uses like a divert. If enroute you realize that you do not have the required reserves, you just may have to stop and get some more fuel. It is unusual, but not unheard of. Certain inflight occurances can cause you to burn more fuel than planned. Things like new ATC routing which increases your flying time/mileage, a slower Mach speed assigned by ATC for spacing, and a lower assigned flight level due to traffic or turbulence. All those things will burn more fuel than planned. It happens.

I've seen Air Canada flight 052 (A343) from Delhi to Toronto often stop in Montreal to refuel.

It encouters so much headwinds from the Jetstream during its flight that sometimes it is inevitable to make a fuel stop!

AK

Although I am a dispatcher, MD88Captain pretty much nailed it when he said it is unusual, but not unheard of to have to divert for something like this.

I can't say what happened on your actual flight with 100% certainty, but one one thing I can dispel is the theory of the fueling goof. At my airline, and I'll presume most major airline I can think of, there are procedures in place for verifying that X-fuel has been loaded aboard. Anytime an aircraft gets airborne with less than the minimum fuel it was released with, I get a nice RED indication on my computer. I'll verify that the fuel-in (from the aircraft's previous flight) plus the gallons added (converted to pounds) equals the appropriate amount of fuel. If it doesn't, there are a number of options available to the PIC and I to "solve" the problem (depending upon how much any actual shortage is), but all this would be handled wwaaayyyy before the flight progressed so close to it's destination.


>>>to reduce the weight to save money

My selective quoting aside, this is done on all flights, but on some flights, it's not a matter of money but a matter of performance versus payload, and the flight might not be able to tolerate anything other than -exactly- what's been planned. For instance, IAH-SLC, if the fuel burn was predicated on the usually optimum FL310 or FL350, and turbulence forced them to stay at FL240 for a substansial portion of the flight, they're going to burn more fuel as a result--fuel that's going to have to come from somewhere else--namely the planned arrival fuel. If that arrival fuel was -required- due to weather, you can't "eat" into it (or the FAR reserve) and you may have to land short, like you did,

There are way too many possibilities to consider, but suffice it to say that it was just one of those operational things that sometimes happens, and not something indicative of a problem at the airline, IMHO...

Listening to the ATC center facilities while over the Rocky Mountains you can get an idea of why you might've burned more fuel that expected. If it's turbulent (like it often can be) there are planes making multiple climbs and descents to avoid turbulence and/or weather. So even though you might've not felt any big turbulence, your flight plan might've taken you on a longer route to avoid it and you probably weren't at an optimum cruising altitude (like the others have said).

pilottim747

Apparently AirTran stocks enough fuel in its tanks. I remember when one was coming into GPT, but the weather was so bad that they had to abort the landing and fly to PNS. Probably took another 15 minutes in the air. But they landed in PNS, Re-fueled, and sent the plane back to GPT with the passengers. All passengers recieved a $500.00 certificate for a free flight on any airline flying within the United States of America.

That's why you need to fly on UA so you can monitor Channel 9!

I just got back from Cancun on Sunday, and on the flight back direct from CUN to YYC we had to make a fuel stop in Denver. Reason being unusually strong headwinds along the flight. It put us in YYC just over 40 minutes late, not to bad really.

On the flight down we made it direct no problem. Aircraft on both legs was an AC A319.

>>>Apparently AirTran stocks enough fuel in its tanks.

The problem isn't whether you can carry lots of fuel in your tanks (you can), but rather, how much payload are you going to have to bump to do so. This is particulary true on shorter flights (where the max takeoff weight is limited by landing), with airports that are hot/high, and with aircraft that may have older less-powerful engines, or restrictive MEL/CDL items, and a number of other variables.

Not that being able to carry a full load of pax -and- full fuel tanks is a great idea either, since you'd be wasting fuel to carry the dead weight of the fuel that wasn't needed for the actual flight.

As I said in an earlier post, payload versus fuel is often a delicate balance, and sometimes a flight has to do something other than what was planned or is desirable.

"I've seen Air Canada flight 052 (A343) from Delhi to Toronto often stop in Montreal to refuel."

Seems odd to be plopping down 200 nm short of destination on a 6300-nm trip.

>>>Seems odd to be plopping down 200 nm short of destination on a 6300-nm trip.

Yes, but it's what Don Addams on the old "Get Smart" show would have said: "Missed it by -that- much...."

Again, there are tons of variables, but when a flight drops into an airport so close to the intended destination, it's usually due to stromger headwinds than forecast. During hot Texas days past, I've run flights into PHX out of AUS, SAT, and HOU that were weight-critical due to the high temps/low weights at their takeoff points, and with minimum legal gas to still get to PHX and still carry everyone. Every once in awhile, a flight would overburn for one reason or another, or unexpected delays would crop up, and you'd have to drop into TUS.

[Edited 2004-03-10 04:05:41]

I have never been on a flight that stops for fuel. Does the aircraft normally go to a gate (its own if the airline flies to that airport) or do they just go to an FBO.

Usually, another airline will handle you, assuming your airline doesn't already fly there, but at some places (especially if you've operated charters in there before) FBO's also work.

OPNLguy-

I realize that different airlines have different fueling procedures, my question regards cases where a fuel sheet is generated from Dispatch and the fueler is expected to follow it. In my previous experiences as a fueler, I've run into many situations where the Captain would like an additional 500-1000 lbs over what the fuel sheet was requesting and the dispatcher wouldn't give it to him. Which in turn, the Captain would go directly to the fueler and request the additional fuel. Most fuelers, being taught that whatever the captain says goes(or being afraid to challenge him) would comply.

My question to you is, if both the Captain and the Dispatcher are responsible for the flight, how can the Dispatcher turn down the Captain's request for more fuel? And can the Captain refuse to fly the leg because of it?

Also, any thoughts on how the fueler can avoid being stuck between a rock and a hard place when this happens? Since the fueler has to deal directly with the Captain(face to face) and has absolutely no contact with Dispatch, I'm sure you understand how they feel intimidated and would rather just comply with the Captains wishes. In your opinion , what would be the best way to handle these situations?

Although I'm no longer in that field, many of my friends are and I still hear all thier horror stories. So I'll pass on whatever you tell me.

One more thing, am currently in airport management, secure job, 60K annually, and the opportunity for advancement, but very, very ho-hum. Am kicking around the idea of a career change. Dispatch sounds exciting, but would be unable to support the family(wife and kids) at the entry level Dispatchers wage.(I heard it could be as low as the 14K - 20K range) Our savings could probably offset the entry level wage for about a year, but then what? Would appreciate hearing about your experiances and recommendations.

And any others reading this thread, what are your recommendations? Stay with a job that pays well, but you don't particularly enjoy or do something you think you'd enjoy, but live at just above the poverty level?

Appreciate your responses!

J-AGG

That's why you need to fly on UA so you can monitor Channel 9!

Couldn't have said that better myself!  

Only happened to me once: UA931, LHR-SFO on 6/28/91. We were over northern Alberta and encountered very heavy headwinds. Captain came on and said we wouldn't make SFO due to the remaining quantity we had left on our 742, and would have to divert to SEA. We were on the ground for about an hour (N10, for all you SEA fans out there) and they put enough fuel on so that we could continue on to SFO. As SEA wasn't our official port of entry into the US, no one could leave the aircraft. The lavs were FULL and STUNK, and they actually had to get US immigration to clear the shit so that it could be unloaded. It was, and we were on our way.

It was also the first time I got to see the flight deck of a 747, so definitely an added benefit! The pilots were plotting the course from SEA-SFO, and referenced Roseburg, OR as a VOR navigational point along the way.

I was on a SEA-IAD flight last August, and due to heavy thunderstorms, we had to circle Akron, Ohio for about an hour. As an avid Ch. 9 listener, I was of course tuned in, and from the sounds of things, it was unlikely that we would be able to go through to IAD, and as our captain told ATC, we were running low on fuel, as was a nearby WN flight. They cleared us to PIT, and we began our descent. About halfway to PIT, the weather broke at IAD and we were cleared to IAD.

[Edited 2004-03-10 06:31:15]

J-AGG

Please email me at the address in my profile, and I'll be happy to chat about career stuff...

As far as your fuel question goes, I wanted to clarify the process first, and my usual disclaimer applies, i.e. US Part 121 airline, regs/procedures at your airline/in your country may vary.

Here, the dispatcher (in a centralized office) generates the dispatch release which out of many bits of info to the PIC specifies the minimum fuel load and any recommended fuel load (like for tankering, etc.). The release is transmitted electronically to the local airline ops office, who print it out for the PIC, who, when signing it, is indicating their concurrence with the info within it.

The local station folks also get the fuel load info off the release and use it to fill out the fuel slip for the fuelers (loading info for wing / center tanks, etc.).

Many airlines (if not most) have certain policies about crews adding fuel over what's on the release, and if any of my crews want another couple of thou, I've got no problem with it as long as they call me (not to ask permission, per se, but to give me their reasoning. If it's because of some factor that may have been overlooked in planning, I'm probably going to want to apply that new factor in planning increased fuel to -other- flights.)

All that said, if your fuel slip says xx,000 pounds, and the PIC comes down and tells you to put xx,000 pounds plus another 2,000 pounds, than let him/her have it. If they want another 10,000 over the xx,000, let them have it too. Bottom-line, there's just no reason for you, as a fueler, to get in the middle. If a PIC takes an extra amount of fuel that's exorbitant, he'll may well have to explain themselves to management, especially if that extra fuel results in operational problems or bumped revenue.

One other item, since I may have a fueling audience here, is to not, no, to NEVER decide -on your own- to put more fuel on the aircraft than is called for on the fuel slip. I had a discussion on a.net previously with a gentleman up at ORD who mentioned that he routinely overfueled aircraft for various reasons, and they were all outside of his purview as a fueler. I handle overweight flights every day, and sometimes because of hot temps, restrictive MEL items, or high arrival fuel requirements, or combinations of the factors, we have to fine-tune the fuel load very closely so as not to leave anyone behind. A fueler who comes in and independently and arbitrairily throws on another 500-1,000 pounds (or more) negates all the previous fine-tuning, and we now have to take a delay de-fueling (and you know what a pain that is) or removing revenue-paying passengers off the aircraft.

IAD-SFO, After 5hrs on the ground we turned around to the gate to get refueled and more ice. I too listen to Ch. 9 and the capt. said to ATC that a pit stop might have to happen and both the ATC and the UA capt. didn't want that to happen so we were cleared to and from 33,000-36,000 the entire way to avoid some really bad stuff. I was also on 806 and 2 of UA's 744's (one was us) were going to set down in Hawaii for the night due to lack of fuel and the turbulence being too bad. The entire cabin was told to sit (F/A too) for about 3 hours. As we bobbed around in the air trailing the other 744 it was a big debate over ATC. In the end we did make it to SFO and the other 744 made it to LAX, it was weird to see how friggen far north we went. I didn't think that we were going to make it to SFO but I didn't know why the other 744 went so far north too. Oh well all is well and UA is still the best!


/ / / U N I T E D 4 E V E R!

UA777222

Being a dispatcher. I have worked these flights many times, and it is not uncommon to have to fuel stop the MD-80 on this route.
The aircraft only holds 39,100 lbs. of fuel, and a lot of the time you are fighting significant headwinds along this route. This is especially true in the winter months when the jet stream rears it's ugly head across the continental U.S. with a typical west to east pattern. The other major consideration is if SLC required an alternate airport due to forecasted weather at time of arrival. CO is even more conservative than the FAR's require. If at the time of the arrival, the forecast was calling for the ceiling to be at/blw 2000ft, and the prevailing visibility to be at/blw 3 statue miles, then they require an alternate. There are not a lot of viable airports in that part of the country that can easily handle a MD80, so they end up usually going to GJT, PIH or BOI. This eats up a lot of precious fuel, and if there is any enroute weather and or severe turbulence or mountain wave conditions, then you always plan around this condition when practical. Bottom line in your case, it could have been a combination of all these things above that dictated the fuel stop. Since CO does not offer a lot of flights in this market, it is better to fuel stop and carry everyone, than to leave 20-25 passengers at the gate, making them 3-5 hours late, vs. all 141 passengers being only 25-30mins late with the stop. It is a fluid situation, and it requires each dispatcher to carefully evaluate the costs involved and collaborate this with both the customer service staff & the captain before a final decision is made. Hope this helps.

[Edited 2004-03-10 07:53:16]

[Edited 2004-03-10 07:57:16]

It used to be very common for TWA and TowerAir to stop for a fuel in Gandor or Bander , enroute from TLV to NYC on older models 747's.
I also flew once on an EL AL flight from TLV - NYC that stopped for fuel at AMS.
Usually a handling agent takes care of things, and the plane parks not on a gate.

Goldentail,

Glad you chimed in with something that was MD80 specific...

Say howdy to Lorraine for me...

In the UK there was a TV show called "Holiday Airline" all this fly on the wall stuff. It followed a Monach A330 from Man to Orlando (Stamford?) as he climbed he asked atc for a FL350? and received one I think about 10,000 Ft lower, argument followed and due to the increased fuel burn the captain said he would have to fuel stop .As the a/c flew he was doing his calculations on a piece of paper! Then he said a list of places were he might stop Bangor ect but in the end he got to his destination ok without stopping. Is this soap- Tv or real life any answers?

Flew QF from LAX to AKL a few years ago that had to stop in Fiji for fuel about 3 AM. Within 20 minutes a UA 747 pulled up next to us with the same problem. It was a case of some very strong seasonal winds - the cabin staff mentioned it was not uncommon that time of the year.

THENOFLYZONE:

I think there has been 1 documented case of AC052 stopping in YUL for fuel. During the dispute regarding overflying Russian airspace, the flight originally stopped in Paris, and later Stockholm (now the official tech stop point if need be).

The flight has also stopped on a couple of occasions in Halifax due to unforseen headwinds. I believe that due to heavy pax/cargo payload, AC052 has a planned fuel stop/crew change at ARN on Mar 13th.

Actually, AC052 stopped in YUL at least twice in the last month. First time was for fuel, and second time was for a crew change, crew had too many flying hours, due to a delayed departure from DEL. Both times it arrived in YUL around 8am, I was there to service it.

A plane I was on also had to refuel. It was a Cathay Pacific B747-400 from LAX-HKG in Dec. 1993, and the plane stopped in TPE before continuing to HKG...pilot said it was a "fuel stop." Passengers were told to stay on the plane.

-A330Fan1

During the summer months, if there is an extremely strong west-to-east wind, CO 67 LGW-CLE will sometimes make fuel stop. It has stopped in the past in YYZ, YUL, BOS and MHT. I think it even stopped in Gander once.

Remember Winds Aloft Forecasts are exactly what the title says....Forecasts.

It doesn't mean that those will be the conditions that you will actually find once you get up there.

Remember a medivac flight one time, that had to stop for gas on what normally was a two hour flight at 250. The headwinds they hit, which where not predicted, give them a 120 knot groundspeed.

This happened to my grandparents sometime this fall. They were flying EWR - HNL on CO 767-400 and had to land in SFO (I think). They said the pilot told everyone there were strong headwinds.

PJ 

we one time had to go back to our gate in IAH cause we burned so much fuel waiting for the storm to clear on august 11th, I am sure there are some people who remember that storm. My flight was delayed about 3 1/2 to 4 hrs.

About 5 years ago, my father was flying on an AA 757 from ORD to SAN. After take-off, a very long line of storms blew up over Kansas and Nebraska. As the captain explained, the forecast called for the storms to form once the plane was over southern Colorado.

Because all of the airspace to the south was full, they wound up heading north to South Dakota before getting around the front.

With the unplanned detour, they wound up setting down at PHX to refuel. The captain explained that if he was absolutely certain that he could fly straight into SAN, without being slotted or having to abort the landing, there was no need to stop. Since he wasn't certain, they set down. The captain didn't even taxi into a gate. A fuel truck, a set of stairs, and a car came out. The captain rode back to ops to file the flight plan. The F/O did the walkaround while the plane was refueled.

The stop in PHX took about 40 minutes, in addition to the additional flying time for deviating from the planned route.

PA110 is South African now stopping on the way back as well since they took over the route from Air Afrique?

That fuel stop in Cape Verde was scary to me at the time since it wasn't really announced.
Not to mention a crew member actually going outside to sign for the fuel!!!

Saudi Arabian use to stop for refueling at Shannon on their RUH/JED - JFK flights in the summer when the flights are full. This was when they used to operate the B747-300 on this route. Now, the 747-400 flies non stop.

 
HZ-AKA

"All passengers recieved a $500.00 certificate for a free flight on any airline flying within the United States of America"

How exactly did Air Tran get all the airlines that fly in the USA go along with this. I would say its more like they received a certificate valid on Air Tran. Seems odd that other airlines would accept a certificate from another airline like that. In my years working for an airline, I never heard anything like this,.

I was on a nonstop SA 743 flight JNB-LHR that had to stop for fuel in Lisbon, owing to headwinds. This was just after SA had started nonstop flights to LON, and the 743 engines were not rated for the performance required to lift a full load out of JNB (something like that anyway), and for a short period after that SA had to go back to fuel stops in SID, LPA or LIS on flights to Europe. I don't remember the exact nature of who restricted whom, but there was an issue as I recall.

we one time had to go back to our gate in IAH cause we burned so much fuel waiting for the storm to clear on august 11th, I am sure there are some people who remember that storm. My flight was delayed about 3 1/2 to 4 hrs.
This situation can occur when the flight burns into the minimum fuel required for takeoff, can't leave with anything less.
IAH is usually good about moving traffic but during thunderstorm season thinks can slow to a crawl when a big cell decides to pay the airport a visit. IAH gets fairly mild winters with decent weather but makes up for that in the spring/summer when you get the daytime heating coupled a moist southerly flow off the gulf causing some strong late afternoon storms.