Fuel Conservation vs. Safety

[ladder360]

http://www.37000feet.com/report/737041

Ran across this NASA ASRS report and a few thoughts came to mind:

1) In day-to-day practical operations, is this something that pilots are finding increasingly becoming an issue?

or

2)Is this a rare (perhaps isolated) incident where the CA is being a little over-protective (if there is such a thing)? Or where the dispatcher made a minor error in judgment - in which case would this really warrant an ASRS report rather than an internal report?

The industry is a business, and therefore it's understandable that fuel conservation is a major factor in maximizing potential profitability. I have a hard time believing that an airline would deliberately cut things so close as to put any flight in reasonable danger. Admittedly, I may be a little naive.

[BobDDuck]

Where I'm at it comes and goes. Somebody figures out if we cut our dispatch fuel loads we will save a bunch of money, and then after several months of increased diversions all the savings is lost so they go back to giving us more fuel again. And then, several months later they try the same thing again.

[skydog]

By regulation, it's a joint responsibility. Agreement between the Captain and the dispatcher is required before a flight can operate. The dispatcher proposed a fuel load. The captain agreed with it. Things didn't quite go as planned, and now that captain wants to blame the dispatcher?

That said, there is generally a movement in the industry to reduce fuel loads to the minimum required for safe flight. It costs money to put fuel in the tanks, it costs money to haul fuel around, and it definitely costs money when payload is bumped in favor of fuel.

Flying on minimum fuel is not, in and of itself; unsafe. However, it does limit your options when things do not go as planned. A little bit of extra fuel can mean the difference between arriving safely at a destination, or arriving safely at the diversion airport. The goal, of course, is to reach the destination.

[ladder360]

I figured since I started this thread, it would be fitting to link this story that coincidentally just hit MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468/

The media sure does the economy a lot of favors with it's sensationalism of our country's largest industries!!

[wheelsup]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the news picked it up here first...then "compiled" the story on their own. This story came out today, the thread is a day old. Scary.

[ladder360]

I was wondering the same thing - one of the "excerpts from pilot's filings" is directly from the ASRS report above. Has that happened before to anyone's knowledge?

[wheelsup]

If this is true we should all be EXTREMELY careful on what we say here. I had always wondered if the media browsed sites like this but honestly didn't think they would lower themselves to browsing pilot forums.

[ladder360]

Agreed. In today's media, I'm not convinced there really is a limit to how low they will go.

[msmspilot]

Originally Posted by ladder360

I was wondering the same thing - one of the "excerpts from pilot's filings" is directly from the ASRS report above. Has that happened before to anyone's knowledge?

A similar coincidence happened on the AOPA board a year or so ago. Maybe it was longer, but still unnerving.

[ljg]

Gas it up! The PIC always makes the final fuel determination. That being said, diversions are not that big of a deal either.

[dispatchguy]

http://grantsrant.wordpress.com/2008...t-enough-fuel/

Several dispatchers are getting on the bandwagon and telling as to how much the article sucks...

[ladder360]

I love it! They've completely torn his story apart! I didn't realize this was a recycled story he did back in February. It was crappy reporting then, and now that it went national, he may be finding out exactly how crappy it still is!

Good find!

[ladder360]

I did a quick Google of the MSNBC.com reporter (Alex Johnson) who resurrected the topic and found this:

MSNBC mistakes a 'fake Al Sharpton' blog for the real thing


http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9766397-36.html

Apparently he was sick the day they taught about references in Reporter Skool.

Good comedy! Shows what a Bozo this guy is!!

[Minuteman]

Originally Posted by ladder360

I figured since I started this thread, it would be fitting to link this story that coincidentally just hit MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468/

The media sure does the economy a lot of favors with it's sensationalism of our country's largest industries!!

Oh goody! Looks like the Limeys are picking up on the ball as well:

• Concerns over suitability of 757s for long routes

Flights between Britain and the US operated by Continental Airlines are under scrutiny by US pilots, politicians and regulators over figures showing the airline's planes ran low on fuel while approaching New York on 96 occasions last year.

The number of "minimum fuel" declarations by Continental pilots leapt five-fold at Newark airport over the past two years, prompting criticism over the carrier's use of relatively small planes for transatlantic routes. Continental has carved out a lucrative niche in services from smaller regional airports.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...stry.useconomy

Its the conspiracy nut in me again, but isn't it convenient this is coming to light about the same time Open Skies is fixin' to have a run at narrowbody trans-atlantic service.

[skydog]

Originally Posted by ljg

Gas it up! The PIC always makes the final fuel determination. That being said, diversions are not that big of a deal either.

Not in a 121 operation he doesn't. Every decision in the planning phase is a joint decision. Even in the execution phase, the only time the Captain gets to do whatever he wants is by exercising emergency authority.

[Ralgha]

Originally Posted by skydog

Not in a 121 operation he doesn't. Every decision in the planning phase is a joint decision. Even in the execution phase, the only time the Captain gets to do whatever he wants is by exercising emergency authority.

Don't know about your 121 operation, but at my 121 operation, the captain can pack on as much fuel as he/she pleases, it's only when going under the release fuel by more than a certain amount that the dispatcher needs to be consulted. Of course the captain may have to answer some questions later on if he topped off the tanks and then bumped half of the booked passengers as a result, but it's still his call.

Once in the execution phase, it's the captain's game. I don't have to ask the dispatcher if I can divert, or if I can change the route, altitude, etc.

[grnclvrs]

Originally Posted by Ralgha

Don't know about your 121 operation, but at my 121 operation, the captain can pack on as much fuel as he/she pleases, it's only when going under the release fuel by more than a certain amount that the dispatcher needs to be consulted. Of course the captain may have to answer some questions later on if he topped off the tanks and then bumped half of the booked passengers as a result, but it's still his call.

Once in the execution phase, it's the captain's game. I don't have to ask the dispatcher if I can divert, or if I can change the route, altitude, etc.

You don't have to get an ammendment to your release to divert?

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by grnclvrs

You don't have to get an ammendment to your release to divert?

We don't.

Half the time we need to divert and we ACARS dispatch about places to go, we don't even hear back from them until we are already on the ground somewhere.