Another Absurd Article

[ksu_aviator]

This is almost as bad as Diana Fairechild's artilce on good v bad air.

_____________________________________________

(New York - WABC, November 7, 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 -- and now New Jersey's two U.S. Senators want something done.

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.

Goto: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5747236 for the rest of the story.

 

[LearLove]

sorta true - although its you typical article bent out of shape written by some non aviation headline seeking journalist.

not that I agree but:

I was told in upgrade that my airline would rather "eat the divert" than have us carry extra fuel. That the "numbers" showed the cost of our average number of diverts was less the cost of tankering extra fuel beyond that rquired per FARs.

Once again I must say this is what I was told not my opinion. That said online I have never (so far) been given any lip/problem from our dispatcher(s) when i called and asked for extra fuel.

Also, if I remember corectly from my atp written days, "min fuel" is not declaring an emergency, it is just notifying the controller that you can not except any further delay - or whatever the Gleim answer for that question was along those lines.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

They have a point here.

Been seeing some rather "tight" fuel loads coming across as normal ops. ASAPS forms are all that is going to solve this for us. That and a crap load of diverts due to fuel.

However as stated above I have never been refused fuel when I wanted it, just taken some lip about gonna make the flight late......of course that falls into the catagory of "Not my problem" If you didn't want it late you shouldn't have given me that "45 mins" that in reality equals about 20!

 

[TWA Dude]

Also, if I remember corectly from my atp written days, "min fuel" is not declaring an emergency, ...

You are correct and what really happens when you declare min fuel is ... nothing. You don't get priority handling so in a practical sense it's a useless proclamation. ATC knows this and they want to give you priority handling but their hands are tied unless the "E" word is in effect. As it just so happens ATC can declare an emergency on your behalf and that's what the controller in the incident above did. No paperwork for the pilot and no fuss. Probably happens every day.

 

[RJAA]

I don't see how min fuel is always a risk to safety. The airline would be just running a piss poor operation by increasing the chance of diverting. If there is not enough gas for flexibility, and if something happens, we just divert. That is all. The real issue here is the decisions being made enroute to continue to a destination where you are running out of options. I think we are all trained to determine if fuel on board is adequate to safely reach the destination. When you don't, you just divert. Simple as that. But seriously, let me ask this, how much gas does it take to get in to EWR? How much is enough? That we don't usually know and we have to put insane amount of gas for "just in case" or "EWR is messed up on a clear day" that is sometimes a result of inefficiencies of our country's outdated ATC system. How much longer do airlines have to buck up for that?

 

[linecheck]

I have to respectfully disagree with the title of this thread. I thought article conveyed the message rather well, in a well written, factual report that highlights the complexities we pilots face when we report for duty.

While most airline news articles, especially ones covering safety issues, seem to be completely off base, this one at least conveys some elements of truth.

With $100 barrel oil, I believe the metrics on this will only worsen, as airlines continually find more creative ways to save a nickel on their fuel costs.