Expose: Airliners running out of gas!

jesse said:
Ouch..That's like..what...12 minutes until glider?
Click to expand...

That's about right. What I said is wrong, though...it was 150lbs per side...just under a half hour at normal cruise (you better believe we weren't going WAO over to MHT, though).
 
FWIW, there are only two terms you can be sure ATC understands in this context -- "minimum fuel" and "emergency." If you use the term "critical" without either P/CG term, they may interpret it as one, the other, something in between, or almost anything else the particular controller thinks it might mean. Caveat Aviator!

Pilot/Controller Glossary said:
MINIMUM FUEL- Indicates that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.

EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.

DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance.

URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
FWIW, there are only two terms you can be sure ATC understands in this context -- "minimum fuel" and "emergency."
Click to expand...

And I am not so sure they understand Minimum Fuel. I had to use it once and it didn't make any difference.
 
Greebo said:
I guess it makes sense but it seems like needless risk on the part of the airlines to me. Do you think the FAA should look in to a reasonable method for setting fines for running too low on fuel assuming the route itself was as planned and reasonable?
Click to expand...
No, because it would be like declaring, No Public Displays of Affection, but then sending a school girl home for hugging her friend.

Onerous laws....
 
Note, I said reasonable, not "zero-tolerance".

But you're probably right.
 
I like this from Ron's post of the pilot/controller glossery
EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.

URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
Click to expand...


If I read this correctly an URGENCY is a condition of being concerned and an EMERGENCY can be an URGENCY Condition.

So in an emergency I have a urgent need to be concerned?

A bit circular and obtuse if you ask me. ;)
 
Greebo said:
Do you think the FAA should look in to a reasonable method for setting fines for running too low on fuel assuming the route itself was as planned and reasonable?
Click to expand...
Already exists. See Administrator v. Morris and Wallace. The FAA was going to take Morris' ATP for running low on fuel but 3 out of 5 NTSB members decided, on appeal, that Morris had not gotten quite that short of fuel. The other two members disagreed on that point (they felt she had less fuel than the other three members believed), and were ready to take her ticket. In a similar case, the FAA did pull a pilot's ATP for choosing to overfly a good airport with adequate fuel in order to land at a questionable airport with "minimum fuel," and the NTSB supported that action.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Then there was also the TACE (Honduran Airline) that ran out of fuel and he managed to glide to a landing off field. The only successful off field landing of a 737.
Click to expand...

A 737 did an off airport landing in Chalmette, LA in the 70's or 80's. Very sucessful. No damage. The towed it to the Mississippi River, put it on a barge, and moved it to a point close to Moisant Field, where they got it on land, towed it to the airport and flew it away.
 
Sorry guys, but you are going to see multiple post from me on this. I can't let it go.

Greebo said:
So let me see if I understand this...

.. the airliners are pressuring the captains to load less fuel.

The idea being, less fuel, less force needed to accelerate the fuel, so less fuel burned?

That just seems ... wrong to me.
Click to expand...

No. The airlines are NOT pressuring the crew to take less fuel. We still must abide by the FARs. Fuel to destination, fuel to most distant alternate, and thereafter at 10,000 feet for 45 minutes. That is required. The Captain ALWAYS has the authority to add more if he sees fit.

And yes, it takes fuel to haul fuel. So X% of any unnecessary fuel hauled gets burned just to haul it.
 
tonycondon said:
thats how i read it. and apparently the captains are taking the bait, evidenced by more than a 14 times increase in minimum fuel calls. I *think* it was Bob Buck who talked in his book North Star Over my Shoulder about how there are few true captains left, and this seems to be proof.
Click to expand...

Come on Tony. That isn't fair. But I will chalk it up to ignorance on the subject.
 
Greebo said:
I guess it makes sense but it seems like needless risk on the part of the airlines to me.
Click to expand...

Why? They have the FAR mandated fuel plus a little for contingencies when they take off

Do you think the FAA should look in to a reasonable method for setting fines for running too low on fuel assuming the route itself was as planned and reasonable?
Click to expand...

Can you see the silliness of that statement? If the flight was planned properly, there was enough fuel onboard to make the trip. There are a LOT of reasons why a flight might run short on a given trip.
 
KennyFlys said:
But, I can't tell you the number of times I hear an aircraft in the departure lineup state they may need to return to the gate for fuel if not off the ground soon. Among them have been Air France and Virgin and at least once for Air China.
Click to expand...

Taxi fuel is figured on time of day, and to a lesser extent the current weather. If ground stops occur, a flight may use up all the taxi fuel. When that happens, they would be using fuel that is required for the trip, just sitting on the ground idling. What would you have them do?

With your mentioning the obtaining "priority handling" I have to wonder if the "return to gate" lines are ever used to persuade ATC to get them ahead of others.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying. I can tell you that departure order is never adjusted. Once you are in the line, it is damned difficult to get out of the line. One way roads and all.
 
smigaldi said:
There is also some other games they play with fuel.:( For instance if point a is cheap fuel and destination b is high fuel, they may load up at a and bring fuel to b.:yes:
Click to expand...

Yes sir!!! :yes:But I don't call that playing games.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Come on Tony. That isn't fair. But I will chalk it up to ignorance on the subject.
Click to expand...

sorry greg, that was out of line. i just find it disturbing that there is such a marked increase in these events.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yes sir!!! :yes:But I don't call that playing games.
Click to expand...


I call that, "sound planning."

I made an informal poll of airline pilots I know (couple from the Big Silver Bird, and one from the airline that Loves You), and they all told me that, if they call for fuel to be added, the only question asked is, "how much?"
 
It has been a LONG time ago. But minimum fuel means no undue delay. I was being vectored all over the sky. I was one vector away from declaring an emergency.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Taxi fuel is figured on time of day, and to a lesser extent the current weather. If ground stops occur, a flight may use up all the taxi fuel. When that happens, they would be using fuel that is required for the trip, just sitting on the ground idling. What would you have them do?
Click to expand...
I have only wondered if they loaded less fuel without truly considering the taxi time.

I don't understand what you are saying. I can tell you that departure order is never adjusted. Once you are in the line, it is damned difficult to get out of the line. One way roads and all.
Click to expand...
Again, I wonder about the circumstance. Is such a line ever used with ATC that basically blames ATC for the plane staying on the ground for so long. It seemingly becomes, "Get us airborne or else."
 
KennyFlys said:
I have only wondered if they loaded less fuel without truly considering the taxi time.
Click to expand...

Taxi time is definitely considered.

Again, I wonder about the circumstance. Is such a line ever used with ATC that basically blames ATC for the plane staying on the ground for so long. It seemingly becomes, "Get us airborne or else."
Click to expand...

Or else what? The system does not work that way.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Sorry guys, but you are going to see multiple post from me on this. I can't let it go.

No. The airlines are NOT pressuring the crew to take less fuel. We still must abide by the FARs. Fuel to destination, fuel to most distant alternate, and thereafter at 10,000 feet for 45 minutes. That is required. The Captain ALWAYS has the authority to add more if he sees fit.

And yes, it takes fuel to haul fuel. So X% of any unnecessary fuel hauled gets burned just to haul it.
Click to expand...

There's a recently retired Captain on that original video report who says he did have to answer to the airline for carrying too much fuel, and he had to work out way to "sneak" extra fuel on board.

I will belive that the rise in minimum fuel declarations is a result of the increased airport delays due to overcrowding and the spate of bad weather earlier this year.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
A 737 did an off airport landing in Chalmette, LA in the 70's or 80's. Very sucessful. No damage. The towed it to the Mississippi River, put it on a barge, and moved it to a point close to Moisant Field, where they got it on land, towed it to the airport and flew it away.
Click to expand...

IIRC, that's the one that landed on the levee, and the downing was the result of hail ingestion in the engines (flameout) when the plane flew through a level 5 cell.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yes sir!!! :yes:But I don't call that playing games.
Click to expand...

I do it all the time.... if $ignature is charging twice the price at my destination and I burn only a 1/3 of a tank getting there, I'll not fill for the return (provided, of course, that I have legal reserves plus my safety margin).
 
KennyFlys said:
I have only wondered if they loaded less fuel without truly considering the taxi time.
Click to expand...
Sometimes taxi time, or maybe we should call it "waiting in line time" can change dramatically from what you anticipate.
Again, I wonder about the circumstance. Is such a line ever used with ATC that basically blames ATC for the plane staying on the ground for so long. It seemingly becomes, "Get us airborne or else."
Click to expand...
I can't imagine anyone who knows how the system operates would use that line to try and cut in front. ATC does not respond to threats and the 20 airplanes in front would be in open rebellion even if there was a way to pass them on the taxiway. I have seen airliners go back to the gate for more fuel but that means they are sent to the back of the line again when they return. In our case, if we use too much fuel taxiing, it's better to take off and make a stop somewhere in between rather than go back for more at a busy airport. I can see how making an intermediate stop would be a much bigger logistical problem for airlines though.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyFlys
I have only wondered if they loaded less fuel without truly considering the taxi time.

Taxi time is definitely considered.
Click to expand...

A lot of the time, for the big boys at least, it's a ballance between having enough gas for the long taxi, but not so much that they have to deny a t/o clearence because they're over the max t/o weight when they get to runway (meaning they'll have to sit there and burn gas until they're light enough).
 
mikea said:
I will belive that the rise in minimum fuel declarations is a result of the increased airport delays due to overcrowding and the spate of bad weather earlier this year.
Click to expand...


Absolutely! They take at least the legal min, and most of the time a decent amount more than that...but then **** happens and the needles keep dropping.
 
Teller1900 said:
A lot of the time, for the big boys at least, it's a balance between having enough gas for the long taxi, but not so much that they have to deny a t/o clearance because they're over the max t/o weight when they get to runway (meaning they'll have to sit there and burn gas until they're light enough).
Click to expand...
I hear that one on rare occasion. The departing aircraft is prepared to remain in line for a while and it starts that way. They even shut down for conservation. But, a freak slowdown in arrivals allows them to move faster and they arrive at #2 with too much fuel indicated.

At least, they aren't forced to return to the line. Usually, they'll be taxied to a run-up area for however long. In that regard, it's no different than a forced delay from a passenger suddenly being locked up in the lavatory. It's frustrating to the controllers but they understand and work with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top