Air France plane missing?

[Gabriel]

On behalf of passengers everywhere, the risk we are prepared to take is 0.

Oh, c'mon. Gimme a break.

EVERYTHING in this life involves risks, and EVERY decision involves a balance of risks, costs (including economic costs) and benefits. Including decisions where safety is at one side of the equation. You can't bear wih that? Don't live (but beware: suicide is risky too). You can't bear with that in the context of air travel? Don't fly (but beware, whtever you do while not flying is probably more risky that flying).

Do you want to make air travel safer and be as sure as possible that you'll get to your destination and not somewhere else, regardless of the cost? Ok, here you have a list:

- Put 30 Gs seats with 5 points harnesses. Remember to trinforce not only the seats, but the seat attachments, the floor and the fussealge, with all the added weight in structure that has to be removed from payload and fuel.
-Depart only if you can do that with not 30 but 90 minutes of fixed reserves, and 20% of variable reserves, and those reserves are calculated after assuming headwinds 100kts faster than forecasted, flight levels 5000ft lower than filed, that you have a 30 minutes loiter on arrival, make an approach and a missed aproach at minimums, fly to the alternate (that must forecasted to be VFR from 5 hors previos to 5 hours after your estimated arrival time, but also have CATII capabilities), and have another 30 minutes loiter. Then add the reserves. That is, more fuel, less payload.
- Use only a 4 engined airplane, so you can continue the flight to your destination in the event of an engine failure (as demonstrated by BA), but be sure to take enough fuel for the increased fuel burn at the lower altitude you'll be flying on 3 engines (as demonstrated by BA with a counter-example).
- Weight each and every passenger, dressed and with his carry-on items, and take that weight in the weight and balance calculation.
- Ensure a take-off weight that is low enugh so the TOD and ASD length that are 1/2 of the available runway. You know there have been a lot of overruns accidents after a rejected take-off. That is less fuel or payload.
- And also ensure that the take-off weight is not more than 66% of the MTOW, so the plane can resist 3.2Gs instead of the 2.5 it would resist at MTOW. Just in case, you know. But this lower weight must be taken from the fuselage, not the wings. (the weight on the wings reduce the wing loads). Again less payload.
- The take-off weight shall be also low enough that the plane can climb directly to FL410 to minimize the chance of neding any weather detour.
- Now take your fully fueled A380 with 2 paxs and their backpacs and no cargo and go from Rio to Paris non-stop with ALMOST zero risk.

Oh, and this airline WILL dissapear after the second flight. Or tell me that the flying public will validate the higher fares.

I know, I'm exagerating, but don't tell me that you are willing to take 0 risk again, especialy not on my name.

Besides, when the airline schedule a flight and sells the tickets and the cargo space, they don't know if the runway at Rio will be wet or dry, if the take-off wll be with a good head wind or none, if the pressure will be high or low, if the temperature will be high or low, what the winds aloft will be, what the weather detours will be, what FL will be available for the flight, and how many soxs will you be carrying in your checked bag.

Therefore, we have a variable reserve in the fuel formula. This is exactly what it is there for.

No. When you do the fuel job, you know how much zero fuel weigh the plane weights (with sttistical figures por passengers and actual weights for checked luggage and cargo), you know the take-off conditions (runway conditions, wind, pressure and temperature), you have a forecast of winds aloft, and you know what FL you'll be filing based on all that. You don't know those things when you start selling the tickets and cargo, months before the flight. What you know is something like "for this flight the typical weather condition is... and the typical load factor is..."

The fuel reserves are for significant weather detours, winds aloft stronger than forecastes, ATC issues (changes in flight levels, circling...), and off-nominal fuel burns.

Now, you can plan ahed with a safety margin, assuming 98% headwinds (that is, headwinds stronger than that happen only on 2% of the flights) and that it will be a hotter and lower pressure day than usual, with a wet slippery runway, that Paris will be marginal IFR and that the closest usable alternate will be 500NM away, and that 100% of the passengers and cargo will show. This will reduce the possible payload and hence the revenue. Still, in something like 99.5% of the flights you COULD have SAFELY AND LEGALLY taken more revenue than planning like that, and still ade it t Paris non-stop.

[Evan]

I know, I'm exagerating, but don't tell me that you are willing to take 0 risk again, especialy not on my name.

Yes, you are, and it doesn't really get us anywhere to do that. Now here it is again in context:

MCM: An airline has to decide (and there are very large departments doing analyses given the huge issues involved) if the possibility of a tech stop is low or high, and what level of risk on that they are prepared to take.

Evan: On behalf of passengers everywhere, the risk we are prepared to take is 0.

The risk we passengers are prepared to take in having to make a technical stop because the aircraft is underfueled and lacks the reserve it should have due to revenue maximizing flight plan roulette... is 0. We were sold a non-stop ticket. We paid for a non-stop ticket, and we expect a non-stop flight (barring emergencies of course). I often pay more for a direct flight so that I can sleep.

The A300-200 has a fully fueled range (not including fixed reserve) at MTOW of 6,750 nm. GIG-CDG is around 5,000 nm. That gives you some room for the unexpected and for trading cargo for fuel. There's nothing unreasonable about filing a flight plan to CDG and fueling with variable reserve to offset most of the conditions you cite. It just means you have to sacrifice a little non-passenger related cargo revenue. Obviously, if you encounter extreme weather conditions that require a tech stop despite the reserve, that is what you do. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I only have a problem with flight plans that depend on the reserves to reach their destination. That violates the definition of 'reserve'. And it greatly raises the risk of having to make an unscheduled stop.

And as it pertains to this thread, I am concerned that it can complicate a weighed decision regarding meteorological threats.

[Peter Kesternich]

I only have a problem with flight plans that depend on the reserves to reach their destination. That violates the definition of 'reserve'. And it greatly raises the risk of having to make an unscheduled stop.

Evan - may I ask you (and actually everbody following this thread) how many unscheduled refueling stops you already have experienced as a passenger in your passenger career?

I personally have experienced not a single one in a total of 385 flights (more than 1000hrs in the air) at the time of writing.

[Evan]

Evan - may I ask you (and actually everbody following this thread) how many unscheduled refueling stops you already have experienced as a passenger in your passenger career?

I personally have experienced not a single one in a total of 385 flights (more than 1000hrs in the air) at the time of writing.

One, in Monterrey Mexico on a charter flight. The pilots never even made an announcement about it, just prepare for landing. I queried one of the flight attendants who let slip that it was due to cheaper fuel prices there.

I assume from your avatar that you are not doing a lot of long-haul. You probably file your flight plans to destination, am I right?

I have no idea of course if I have just been lucky or if my flights were filed as advertised.

I have also never had a ditching, a cargo-fire, a decompression, a loss of multiple hydraulic systems or a ride on the escape slide. But I wouldn't use this as rationale to remove the contingencies. But then again, think of all the cargo revenue you could trade them for...

Can't you see how this minimized fuel policy could inhibit a decision to divert around questionable weather systems, and encourage calculated risks?

[Peter Kesternich]

Can't you see how this minimized fuel policy could inhibit a decision to divert around questionable weather systems, and encourage calculated risks?

Well, Evan - I am not a pilot. I was quoting my passenger experience and yes, I do quite a bit of long haul...

As for calculated risk - the whole life is a calculated risk. There is no absolute safety anywhere and taking to the air always includes the risk of falling just like taking to the water includes the risk of sinking. And we all calculate a risk when we walk the streets, enter the sea for a swim or board an airplane. But, honestly, I don't see how the fuel policy we are debating here makes the risk any greater, as long as all people involved act responsibly. NOTHING, no rules, no policies, no safeguards, will save you when your pilots act recklessly and there is no way you can prevent an accident if somebody is deliberately irresponsible. But for the benefit of the aviation community - and assuming that a pilot has a survival instinct just as strong as you and me - I definitely believe that virtually all airline pilots are responsible professionals. And as such I trust they make the right decisions.

And now here's the catch, Evan. If you personally DON'T believe that pilots in their overwhelming majority are repsonsible and make the right decisions, there is only one way for you to stay out fo harm's way - don't fly. Because, like I said, in the end nothing can save you from recklessness and irresponsibility.

[Evan]

But, honestly, I don't see how the fuel policy we are debating here makes the risk any greater, as long as all people involved act responsibly.

Yes, but responsibility has multiple dimensions. In this situation, the pilot has to be responsible to both lives (including his own) and the practical consequences of his decision, and when the level of risk appears marginal, has to calculate an acceptable estimate of risk into the decision. It's probably always safer to divert around undefined weather systems, but never practical. Less fuel margin for diversion means more pressure on the practicalities side. A lot of pilots would argue that safety is always the deciding factor, but these guys decided to fly straight into (or in very close proximity to) a developing cluster of CB towers. That might not have brought them down, but it can be considered marginally risky.

And now here's the catch, Evan. If you personally DON'T believe that pilots in their overwhelming majority are repsonsible and make the right decisions, there is only one way for you to stay out fo harm's way - don't fly. Because, like I said, in the end nothing can save you from recklessness and irresponsibility.

Stricter regulations can, by removing the pilot from having to make these difficult risk vs. consequences decisions, go a long way toward saving me.

BTW - I trust the majority of pilots to make the safer decision despite the consequences when the situation is clearly dangerous. It's this grey area that concerns me.

[EconomyClass]

If you personally DON'T believe that pilots in their overwhelming majority are repsonsible and make the right decisions, there is only one way for you to stay out fo harm's way - don't fly

Too extreme. But carefully consider the need to fly across the equatorial zone. I think anyone making that trip could have discovered the violence of the weather before climbing on that plane. Like some enthusiasts there, they undoubtedly told themselves "planes have successfully made the trip thousands of times" and just took it on faith this one would do it successfully too.

But as for me, there are many things people have successfully done that I wouldnt care to try, such as Evel Knievel's career achievements. Or climbing certain rockfaces in America. Past experience is no guarantee of future performance. Applies to the stock market and making airplane trips.

[Myndee]

I don't remember seeing this discussed before, and I am not re-reading this whole thread again. I think I remember that heavy rain and hail can be present in high altitudes in a ITCZ storm. Could it be that hail damaged the pitots, or the engines took in too much rain/hail, or some kind of combination of the two which led to a stall? If the pitots were beat to hell by baseball size hail, and they flew lower as they were trying to figure out where they needed to be, then they were stuck in middle of the thunderstorm from hell.
Please use Southern 242 as a reference.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/southern242.htm

Please note that I am not as smart as you guys. I am just trying to figure out if it would be feasible in this situation. Still learning.

[MCM]

I've been away for a few days (actually been working ) so will have to catch up a bit.

Here is a point that I don't like to get into an argument over, but I'll point out that at no point in your ticketing does it say anything about no technical stops, nor guarantees about non-stop flights. If you don't like an airline doing it, then as a consumer you can ask them their policy... but you need to vote with your feet.

You actually aren't using a reserve to fly to your destination at all... but you are being clever about how you calculate the reserve. It isn't just because you wanted to take more freight, but the fact you don't want to carry and burn unnecessary fuel.

The risk we passengers are prepared to take in having to make a technical stop because the aircraft is underfueled and lacks the reserve it should have due to revenue maximizing flight plan roulette... is 0.

Well, I wish you luck in finding that Airline Evan. I know of no longhaul airlines that do not employ the inflight refile technique, at least occasionally. Some airlines are happier to wear a diversion than others, and maybe you should try and find stats on who diverts more often than others. I think the proof is that passengers ARE prepared to wear that risk, because they demand low fares.

The Frankfurt example is an interesting one, and is always a tactical decision, and there is a lot more that goes into the decision than just the preflight fuel... but a lot is based on the time you will arrive. If we know overhead frankfurt that the fuel is there, there is no point flying past it, then turning and coming back. So an early decision is made.

A well executed fuel stop should take no more than 1 to 1.5 hrs, and is a necessary part of the industry unfortunately.

I'd point out that flying to Paris vs Bordeaux is so close that the fuel reserves needed between the two would be close to minimal anyway, and I find it a little difficult to think they'd do the refile unless the weather in Paris was such that they needed an alternate they couldn't carry without significant load penalty, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

But once again - there is no way that a crew would say "oh, we need to maintain our fuel, we'll not go around that thunderstorm". That is just crap. The ONLY time you would do that is if you had insufficient fuel to make ANY airfield, and certainly not when you're alternate is one that makes fine wine and would be a nice place to spend a few days

We seem to also be concentrating on the fact they flew into a storm that they shouldn't have. I have a sneaking suspicion that at the end of the day, there will have been far greater errors involved than just the storm.

[EconomyClass]

Succinctly you are saying false advertising is SOP in the aviation industry. In a lot of businesses, that could get you in some trouble. I don't think the FTC, for instance, ever says "go ahead and promise A with no intent to deliver."

I think the very next ticket I buy I'm gonna check MCM on this. Frankly, I'm very skeptical about what he is so confidently claiming.

[Peter Kesternich]

Stricter regulations can, by removing the pilot from having to make these difficult risk vs. consequences decisions, go a long way toward saving me.

BTW - I trust the majority of pilots to make the safer decision despite the consequences when the situation is clearly dangerous. It's this grey area that concerns me.

Stricter regulations won't help at all if the pilots choose to ignore them and that actually is the grey area you are talking about. But like I said - nothing will help you if a pilot chooses to ignore the rules.

[Peter Kesternich]

I think the very next ticket I buy I'm gonna check MCM on this. Frankly, I'm very skeptical about what he is so confidently claiming.

Well, EconomyClass, I just spend half an hour paging through Air France's Conditions of Carriage:

http://www.airfrance.co.uk/GB/en/common/transverse/footer/edito_cgt1.htm

Nowhere could I even find the word nonstop

[EconomyClass]

Jeez, ever heard of the Uniform Commercial Code? Business doesn't totally define its own conditions in contracts. There's contract law, too. Hope you had fun.

[EconomyClass]

By the way, just out of curiosity, when and how does a consumer "sign" the sweetheart contract the airline has drawn for itself? Its fine to have a contract, but secret contracts don't hold up very well.

Well, the air lawyers on this board have interesting ideas about obligations of carriers. I just went to Air France's site and read the brief "conditions of sale". All the cleverness I've read here seemed notably absent there. I also search a flight from Rio to Paris. You might find some interesting way to read what the site says, but I read "no connecting flight" as meaning nonstop.

http://www.airfrance.us/cgi-bin/AF/U...isteDesVols.do

[Peter Kesternich]

... but I read "no connecting flight" as meaning nonstop.

Just for your information, EconomyClass, only "nonstop" means "nonstop" in airline terminology. "No connecting flight" means you don't have to make a connection at another airport to a flight with a different flight number. And "direct" flight means that the flight can have stops in between the start and final destination but that the flight number doesn't change.