Real world: what percentage of approaches go missed?

RotorAndWing said:
And in instances where companies have declared "no additional fuel" it's been challenged, and the FAA has sided with the Captains.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but based on what I'm reading in the aviation press and hearing personally from air carrier pilots for US major carriers, reductions in "captain's fuel" are happening with some regularity, and those challenges are not.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe on that one particular flight, but when you average it out over all their flights all year, it probably doesn't pay off. You can be sure they have some really smart folks crunching the numbers to evaluate that, and if it was cheaper overall, they'd be doing it.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about those "really smart folks" trying to make operational decisions and attempting to curtail Captain's authority.

These "KWT's" (Kids With Ties) come in and take raw numbers and declare "You only need 5,000 lbs of fuel to fly this route". However the KWT doesn't know the difference between an Airbus, Boeing or a Cessna nor does he know anything about the ATC system. He is strictly looking at fuel cost with no consideration for diversions or the impact of what one diversion does to the whole system.

Thankfully the regulations stop the KWT's from totally usurping the captain's authority.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps so, but based on what I'm reading in the aviation press and hearing personally from air carrier pilots for US major carriers, reductions in "captain's fuel" are happening with some regularity, and those challenges are not.
Click to expand...

When I flew in the US we had a company memo declaring we must only fly with company declared minimum fuel to save cost. Any additional fuel request would not be considered above a minimal amount. ALPA took that memo to the FAA and presented it, the FAA came back and advised the company of the potential violations associated with such a policy and advised them to reconsider. The policy was rescinded and rewritten to say "please use good judgement".

If a Captain chooses to go against his better judgement and fly with inadequate fuel, then that is now his problem.

The FAA has never sided with a company when it's contested that a Captain refuses to fly with company mandated min fuel. Companies will not push the issue if a captain refuses a flight release due to inadequate fuel because the regulations are quite clear.

BTDT.
 
Last edited:
Real world go arounds for me have been maybe 1 a year at most. Diverts less than that.

Yes, there's huge pressure to not take extra fuel at the airlines. It costs money (higher fuel burn) to carry the extra fuel.

Having said that, I'm the captain (OK, I was the captain. Just got downgraded). Looking over all the data for the flight, I still make the final decision as to the fuel load. I may have to explain why, but very, very rarely do I have to. In these cases, it's because I couldn't carry the contracted payload.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Let's talk about those "really smart folks" trying to make operational decisions and attempting to curtail Captain's authority.

These "KWT's" (Kids With Ties) come in and take raw numbers and declare "You only need 5,000 lbs of fuel to fly this route". However the KWT doesn't know the difference between an Airbus, Boeing or a Cessna nor does he know anything about the ATC system. He is strictly looking at fuel cost with no consideration for diversions or the impact of what one diversion does to the whole system.

Thankfully the regulations stop the KWT's from totally usurping the captain's authority.
Click to expand...
You're talking at cross-purposes on this. The question I was answering was why airliners don't carry on every flight enough fuel to hold for an unusually long time on arrival without diverting, or to conduct many approaches without diverting. That's a different situation than the Captain choosing to carry somewhat more than the legally required fuel load due to his/her experience with the expected conditions.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Let's talk about those "really smart folks" trying to make operational decisions and attempting to curtail Captain's authority.

These "KWT's" (Kids With Ties) come in and take raw numbers and declare "You only need 5,000 lbs of fuel to fly this route". However the KWT doesn't know the difference between an Airbus, Boeing or a Cessna nor does he know anything about the ATC system. He is strictly looking at fuel cost with no consideration for diversions or the impact of what one diversion does to the whole system.

Thankfully the regulations stop the KWT's from totally usurping the captain's authority.
Click to expand...

I've seen the end result of the pencil pushers. I lost count of how many times I'd tell aircraft holding that we were getting out of the hold in five to ten minutes, only to have most of my stack of airplanes bail out immediately afterward.

That was four years ago. Today, a lot of airplanes divert to their alternate as soon as we mention airborne delays. Then, you get the Eagle Flight or Chataqua flight that has to hold because they are too heavy to land. :mad2:
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Yes, there's huge pressure to not take extra fuel at the airlines. It costs money (higher fuel burn) to carry the extra fuel.

Having said that, I'm the captain (OK, I was the captain. Just got downgraded). Looking over all the data for the flight, I still make the final decision as to the fuel load. I may have to explain why, but very, very rarely do I have to. In these cases, it's because I couldn't carry the contracted payload.
Click to expand...
I think that's consistent with what both R&W and I said -- Captain makes the final decision, but there is still a lot of company pressure on the Captain to keep the fuel loads down to save money.
 
1. I have done very few actual missed approaches over the years. But they can be high work load and require thinking, chewing gum, flying and talking.
2. I'm with Ron and, where possible I take instrument students to locations where we can get multiple approaches at a location where we are guaranteed to go missed, provided there is someplace nearby where we can get in.
3. "Captain's fuel" is airline to airline. Also, the stories about airlines cracking down on this may be more about pilots trying to take "captain's fuel" on nice days when there is no need for it and bumping pax in the process. The only time I had to discuss taking extra fuel with dispatch at my airline was when I had to do this- bump pax. Sometimes I did have to divert while enroute due to ATC delays, though this was rare. Maybe once every other year. One of the times I remember going missed under 121 I had enough tankered fuel to do the missed, go to hold, talk to dispatch about going to an airport that was closer than the alternate but did not meet the alternate weather requirements; figured out I had the fuel to do this and still get to the alternate with over 45 minutes of gas. Got into the closer airport which was at 200 1/2. Everyone was happy.
4. Some of the missed approaches I have had to do demonstrate why good, demanding instrument training that emphasizes BI is critical. One was flying single pilot night fright in a light twin. I went missed at KCSG half way through the ILS due to thunderstorms on the airfield. I did not have an alternate as weather was suppose to be okay, but it went bad real quick through my area. Got vectors around the weather; then went off frequency to get a weather update at my next destination with FSS and find out a way of getting there around the weather; then did an estimate of the distance and time and the fuel required in my head to make sure I had fuel to get there, do an approach and still have some fuel to get somewhere else; then went back to ATC... all while hand flying in pounding rain.
Another 135 missed was hairy. The airplane ahead of me on the ILS into KABY had a vacuum failure during his missed. During his disorientation he did a 180 and started flying right toward me. I was instructed to do an immediate missed with a 90 degree right turn due to converging traffic. Not what one expects to hear on an ILS to minimums. That guy ahead of me was a friend and was able to get things under control and came back for a no-gyro ILS.
 
Missed approaches, probably less than one per year on average. Diverting is much more common.
 
Everskyward said:
Missed approaches, probably less than one per year on average. Diverting is much more common.
Click to expand...

What do you use as criteria to divert without shooting an approach first? Or is that a decision made by OpSpecs based on ATIS/WOS/SOS before you actually get to destination?
 
EdFred said:
What do you use as criteria to divert without shooting an approach first? Or is that a decision made by OpSpecs based on ATIS/WOS/SOS before you actually get to destination?
Click to expand...


We can't start the approach with visibility below minimums. Yes I know this is a 135 rule but we are also required to follow it even Part 91, by contract with the owners.
 
Everskyward said:
We can't start the approach with visibility below minimums. Yes I know this is a 135 rule but we are also required to follow it even Part 91, by contract with the owners.
Click to expand...

I figured it was something like that if you have more diversions than missed approaches. :)
 
Everskyward said:
We can't start the approach with visibility below minimums. Yes I know this is a 135 rule but we are also required to follow it even Part 91, by contract with the owners.
Click to expand...

Aha! I wondered where that rule was. For some reason, I had gotten the impression that it applied to all Part 91 operations as well.
 
I only remember doing three in actual airplanes, but many more than that in ultralight trikes when I was getting the hang of them. (And of course there are the occasional deer or cow go-arounds, but they don't count.)

-Rich
 
Badger said:
I'm not talking training, etc.
in actual how often do you 'miss'?
Click to expand...


Once in 20+ years instrument flying, flew to the hold, two turns tried again and mad it in..
 
I've had my IR since 1990 and I've flown one actual missed approach, ILS with 100ft/ sky obscured.:no: That was in 1998, I think. I have flown two assigned holding patterns, both in the same month, 1998 or 1999. ;)
I tend to be pretty careful on weather before I launch, my missed approach was when I left on a short flight on a crystal clear morning and didn't get a weather briefing.:mad2:
 
Ron Levy said:
You're talking at cross-purposes on this. The question I was answering was why airliners don't carry on every flight enough fuel to hold for an unusually long time on arrival without diverting, or to conduct many approaches without diverting. That's a different situation than the Captain choosing to carry somewhat more than the legally required fuel load due to his/her experience with the expected conditions.
Click to expand...


Is 15 minutes "unusually long"?

That's near the upper limit of when I see part 121 aircraft give up, go elsewhere and completely screw the passengers on the current flight and many subsequent flights.
 
RJM62 said:
I only remember doing three in actual airplanes, but many more than that in ultralight trikes when I was getting the hang of them. (And of course there are the occasional deer or cow go-arounds, but they don't count.)

-Rich
Click to expand...

You do instrument approaches in an ultralight trike?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top