Pilots claim airliners forced to fly with low fuel
While this seems like a good way to save on fuel usage, and therefore costs, it sounds like there may be some who push the limit too close.
The pilot is in charge of fuel load, but it seems that some dispatchers are questioning their judgement.
Is this right?
Is this safe?
Does this worry anyone?
Maybe it's all good?
And then the airline representatives claim is that it isn't an issue.
However, as an issue, it isn't one which is known to have caused a problem in the United States for almost two decades either.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop a computer program that calculates a consistent amount of fuel based on factors such as aircraft type, passenger and baggage load, weather, alternate runways, etc? Maybe there is a program like this already. Does this program exist?
Not hard to see the incentive to cut weight. The following article suggests that each pound of weight costs about $5.00/lb/flight hour at current rates. ($16,000/1,079 lbs/3 hr flight.)
While this seems like a good way to save on fuel usage, and therefore costs, it sounds like there may be some who push the limit too close.
The pilot is in charge of fuel load, but it seems that some dispatchers are questioning their judgement.
Is this right?
Is this safe?
Does this worry anyone?
Maybe it's all good?
As cash-strapped airlines pack more passengers on flights into ever-busier airports, pilots are filing internal complaints warning that airline cost-cutting on fuel supplies could be creating a major safety risk.
The complaints, compiled by msnbc.com and NBC News from a database of safety incident reports maintained on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration, reveal wide-ranging concern among pilots that airlines are compelling them to fly with too little fuel.
With the cost of jet fuel having doubled in the past year, according to Energy Department figures released last month, airlines are eager to save fuel costs.
Continental Airlines, for example, issued two bulletins last year expressing concern over the number of refueling stops that some flights were making en route to Newark, N.J., one of which observed that “adding fuel indiscriminately without critical thinking ultimately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding.”
FAA regulations are precise: A plane must take off with enough primary fuel to reach its destination and then its most distant alternate airport based on conditions. It must carry a reserve of 45 minutes’ worth of fuel on top of that.
But Karl Schricker, a spokesman for the 12,000-member Allied Pilots Association, the largest independent pilots union, said some pilots believed the FAA guidelines were not enough in an era when airlines are seeking to save costs by having aircraft carry the minimum fuel required. If a pilot has to stay in a long holding pattern before landing, the extra fuel can dwindle quickly.
“You don’t want to be at absolute minimum fuel and go to put the gear down and have the gear not come down,” he said. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468/
The complaints, compiled by msnbc.com and NBC News from a database of safety incident reports maintained on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration, reveal wide-ranging concern among pilots that airlines are compelling them to fly with too little fuel.
With the cost of jet fuel having doubled in the past year, according to Energy Department figures released last month, airlines are eager to save fuel costs.
Continental Airlines, for example, issued two bulletins last year expressing concern over the number of refueling stops that some flights were making en route to Newark, N.J., one of which observed that “adding fuel indiscriminately without critical thinking ultimately reduces profit sharing and possibly pension funding.”
FAA regulations are precise: A plane must take off with enough primary fuel to reach its destination and then its most distant alternate airport based on conditions. It must carry a reserve of 45 minutes’ worth of fuel on top of that.
But Karl Schricker, a spokesman for the 12,000-member Allied Pilots Association, the largest independent pilots union, said some pilots believed the FAA guidelines were not enough in an era when airlines are seeking to save costs by having aircraft carry the minimum fuel required. If a pilot has to stay in a long holding pattern before landing, the extra fuel can dwindle quickly.
“You don’t want to be at absolute minimum fuel and go to put the gear down and have the gear not come down,” he said. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468/
David A. Castelveter, vice president of the Air Transport Association, which represents the major airlines, vigorously disputed the idea that airlines would cut corners on safety to save money.
“That’s an absurd allegation,” he said. “There are no shortcuts in the operation of the aircraft, and no carrier is going to compromise the safe operation of a flight.”
“That’s an absurd allegation,” he said. “There are no shortcuts in the operation of the aircraft, and no carrier is going to compromise the safe operation of a flight.”
It has been nearly 20 years since a commercial passenger airliner crashed in the United States because it ran out of fuel, according to the aviation safety site AirSafe.com. An Avianca Airlines 707 flying from Bogota, Colombia, fell 16 miles short of John F. Kennedy International Airport on Jan. 20, 1990, killing 73 passengers.
Numerous regulations, guidelines and fail-safes are built in to the U.S. aviation system to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But the incident reports reflect pilots’ concerns that the margin of error could be narrowing.
Some pilots accuse dispatchers of underestimating or overlooking flight conditions so they could say the fuel allocations they recommended met the FAA’s requirements.
Numerous regulations, guidelines and fail-safes are built in to the U.S. aviation system to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But the incident reports reflect pilots’ concerns that the margin of error could be narrowing.
Some pilots accuse dispatchers of underestimating or overlooking flight conditions so they could say the fuel allocations they recommended met the FAA’s requirements.
“Upon arrival, I called dispatch to see what the fuel load that was planned for [the] flight to [O’Hare International Airport in Chicago]. I was told it was 75,000 lbs and I asked for it to be upped to 90,000 lbs,” one pilot wrote. “I was challenged by the dispatcher as to why and said I will not fly with less. ...
PHOENIX - Your ginger-ale doesn’t come in a glass anymore on most US Airways flights. On Delta you’ll find yourself in a thinner, lighter seat. If you fly JetBlue cross-country, you’ll get a dainty bag of 100-calorie crisps in place of the original snack box of cookies, crackers and spreadable cheese.
With jet fuel prices so high, airlines have no choice but to scour their planes for ways to lighten the load. There’s no room for even the smallest bits of dead weight, from redundant wing lights to extra wires in the walls. Manufacturers also are using lighter materials in plane construction.
“The pressure is immense” to cut weight, said John Heimlich, chief economist for the Air Transport Association of America, an industry trade group. “Every penny more per gallon adds $195 million to the industry’s expenses per year. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23847100/
With jet fuel prices so high, airlines have no choice but to scour their planes for ways to lighten the load. There’s no room for even the smallest bits of dead weight, from redundant wing lights to extra wires in the walls. Manufacturers also are using lighter materials in plane construction.
“The pressure is immense” to cut weight, said John Heimlich, chief economist for the Air Transport Association of America, an industry trade group. “Every penny more per gallon adds $195 million to the industry’s expenses per year. More here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23847100/
Comment