Ryanair "fuel rationing" story

probe

In paragraph 6 of the GB-Times story on fuel rationing, the author states "Under European rules, every plane must carry a “contingency” load of about 5% of a trip’s fuel, and enough to divert to an alternative airport."

In the final paragraph he says "A spokesman for the CAA said it would not comment because Ryanair’s fuel policy was monitored by the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA)."

This leaves two questions in my mind:

1) If "European rules" require a 5%+ contingency reserve, how can Ryanair issue instructions limiting these reserves to "300 kg maximum"? Surely the issuing of such instructions is illegal?

2) Is the IAA doing its job properly, or is it just another dysfunctional Irish government agency like the HSE etc?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4641399.ece

.probe

foxhoundone

probe matey..
i live right next to belfast city airport, an i was wondering [u seem clued up on this}
what is the consumpion of fuel required {in tonnes plz}for an aeroplane to take of and land, i,m involved with the local residents group to limit planes, commings and goings
ur help an knowledge greatly needed thnks...

axer

probe wrote: »

In paragraph 6 of the GB-Times story on fuel rationing, the author states "Under European rules, every plane must carry a “contingency” load of about 5% of a trip’s fuel, and enough to divert to an alternative airport."

In the final paragraph he says "A spokesman for the CAA said it would not comment because Ryanair’s fuel policy was monitored by the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA)."

This leaves two questions in my mind:

1) If "European rules" require a 5%+ contingency reserve, how can Ryanair issue instructions limiting these reserves to "300 kg maximum"? Surely the issuing of such instructions is illegal?

2) Is the IAA doing its job properly, or is it just another dysfunctional Irish government agency like the HSE etc?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4641399.ece

.probe

Maybe 300kg is enough for each destination Ryanair operate to.

*Kol*

300kg is 5% of 6000kg ( 5% being the legal requirement for contingency fuel). I would say that would cover the majority of Ryanair flights. I flew on a B737-300 recently and we only used about 2000kg for a 1hr40min flight.

highlydebased

Not another Ryanair bashing thread!

There is a legal requirment for what it must carry for extra fuel

However the captain is permitted if he justifably sees fit to ammend extra fuelload.

*Kol*

Dont forget that the decision to head to an alternate airport is made way befoe you get to minimum fuel. With 300kg on board you wont be going far!! There would be fuel pump low pressure lights coming on at that stage. I wouldn't even do a go around if there was only 300kgs of fuel left never mind head for another airport.

lostexpectation

the memo is very adversarial does ryanair hate its pilots that much?

FlutterinBantam

Load of rubbish actually.

An airline may have a "fuel policy" but the flight crew are ultimately responsible for the uplift.

If weather conditions at dest. are not good and a diversion is possible or probable the flight crew will decide on the contingency fuel.

they will allow for delays into the primary airport and a diversion to the nearest airport where the forecastweather is within limits.

No one but a total idiot would leave himself or herself up there with a critical fuel situation.

A320-200

TRIP FUEL
ALTERNATE
IFR RESV. (45MIN)
HOLD (If reqd.)
TAXI+APU

You NEED all the fuel above except Holding fuel, which is usually 30min.
If not, serious infractions will insue (Loss of operating license etc.)
When they refer to ''Extra'' Fuel, they mean on top of all the above fuel.

andy_g

i have to agree with A320 but normally what we do is we take a full tank onboard in the morning and again on AC change over or change of morning to day shift pilots.

Flyer1

Ryanair are subject to exactly the same requirements as all other airlines. They must carry a minimum reserve to go to their alternate, carry out a few missed approaches etc. It pee's me off to hear people bashing ryanair, a captain isn't going to put himself or any of his pax in harm.

foxhounde matey, don't come in to an aviation forum spouting your nonsense about wanting to reduce air travel. It's the fastest growing form of transport in the world. What annoys me is people whinge about airplanes " ohh they're noisy, ohhh they're dangerous ". These comments are generally from people who haven't a clue about aviation and all things involved. If you can stand up and swear you've never used or been involved in some form of air transport be it on a holiday, be it mail in to your house, be it the food you eat to survive, be it the medical supplies friends and family need in hospitals. Without aviation this world would be not what it is today.

yaeger

So you mormally take a full tank onboard in the morning andy_g or when you have a shift change over.............:D
So say for example your doing a manchester flight from dublin, you would top up to nearly 14tons on a A320 for example even though you only need 2 or 3, maybe 4 or 5 if you wish to tanker and make it round trip fuel...........but sure top it boss no doubt your company wont mind you carrying an extra 8tons in the TANK,,,even though that it inself would burn more fuel to carry that fuel !
So your not with ryanair then where they will make it tricky fot you to even stick 300Kgs extra on according to article above? emmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm INTERESTING very interesting

Me thinks someone is living in make believe land !

A Dub in Glasgo

Flyer1 wrote: »

foxhounde matey, don't come in to an aviation forum spouting your nonsense about wanting to reduce air travel. It's the fastest growing form of transport in the world. What annoys me is people whinge about airplanes " ohh they're noisy, ohhh they're dangerous ". These comments are generally from people who haven't a clue about aviation and all things involved. If you can stand up and swear you've never used or been involved in some form of air transport be it on a holiday, be it mail in to your house, be it the food you eat to survive, be it the medical supplies friends and family need in hospitals. Without aviation this world would be not what it is today.

Surely the A&A forum is for all aspects of A&A, not just those that worship A&A?

Flyer1

I'm fed up of listening to people whining about aviation, it's here and it's here to stay, I often hear people bitching that aeroplanes make a lot of noise when they take off. Yet these people proceed to build their house when the airport has been there far longer then their house. Classic example of this is Weston.

foxhoundone

well i,m not anti airplane . i use them fairly often but belfast, being in a bowl theirs little dispercile of the fumes generated from take off an landing, what put me on to this isnt so much the noise but the contamination of the surrounding area..{ie my home} and the graduale increace in skin and lung related illness, hence the need to regulate commings an goings of flights into belfast city airport.. there is aldergrove away out in the sticks plenty of acces to it by rail and bus and good winds to clear fumes ...

Tenger

Flyer1 wrote: »

I'm fed up of listening to people whining about aviation, it's here and it's here to stay, I often hear people bitching that aeroplanes make a lot of noise when they take off. Yet these people proceed to build their house when the airport has been there far longer then their house. Classic example of this is Weston.

Or on a larger scale anyone who built/bought near Heathrow in the last 30 years.

foxhoundone

its not the noise its the fumes from taking of and landing.theres no reqirment to have an airport in a populated city limit...

*Kol*

foxhoundone wrote: »

its not the noise its the fumes from taking of and landing.theres no reqirment to have an airport in a populated city limit...

The fumes?? Are there no cars or lorries driving around your area? Where else would you have an airport other than where there are plenty of peope who can avail of it? It's a pain to have to travel for ages to get to an airport especially if you are getting on a short flight.

foxhoundone

*Kol* wrote: »

The fumes?? Are there no cars or lorries driving around your area? Where else would you have an airport other than where there are plenty of peope who can avail of it? It's a pain to have to travel for ages to get to an airport especially if you are getting on a short flight.

of course theres cars, buses, trains, ferrys, and now hawken big noisy dirty airoplanes.. all in the catchment area of belfast, if it wasnt for the rain we would be like beijing, im for the envioroment, not so SUITS can get about easier,...

axer

foxhoundone wrote: »

not so SUITS can get about easier,...

and products get cheaper in price and tourists visit the country and the economy grows which brings jobs and other spin-offs. Sure who wants that?

foxhoundone

axer wrote: »

and products get cheaper in price and tourists visit the country and the economy grows which brings jobs and other spin-offs. Sure who wants that?

yeah right, we have tescos, ikea ,sainsburys,[ cheap min wage labour}
all our heavy industry shiped to the mainland{no new labour votes here}
and the tourists only visit to look at the murals.
and dont talk to me about the economy, we have to drive over the border to get cheaper fuel.

*Kol*

foxhoundone wrote: »

of course theres cars, buses, trains, ferrys, and now hawken big noisy dirty airoplanes.. all in the catchment area of belfast, if it wasnt for the rain we would be like beijing, im for the envioroment, not so SUITS can get about easier,...

I'm afraid we will have to agee to differ there. That's my living!

Flyer1

As previously said, what about the thousands of cars, trucks, buses, trains etc. plodding around Belfast. When taking off the aircraft have probably a ground roll of about 30 seconds and are climbing in excess of 2000ft/min so they're hardly buzzing around all day at low level.

On landing they're on reasonably low power settings giving off low amounts of pollution.

I depend on aviation for my work, and it's my hobby aswell so I won't be giving in either .

Ryanair have their engines de-rated so as to reduce pollutants etc. so they are doing more than their fair bit to the environment. If you look at America, people are cruising along in 5 and 6 litre trucks doing 10MPG. Why not says I ?

Re skin and lung illness, smoking tobacco has a far far worse effect then an aircraft taking off from the nearby airport. If you don't smoke you'll surely be at some stage in a room where someone is smoking, 20 minutes of this has to be worse for you then an aircraft 15 miles away spending 30 seconds on the roll.

I'm not a believer in all this green eco waffle, to be honest it's a reason for the Government to screw people in the wallet for something that will never be stopped. The earth goes through natural cycles of warming up and cooling down. A little knowledge for people is a dangerous tool

foxhoundone

On landing they're on reasonably low power settings giving off low amounts of pollution, hmm what about reverse thrust,...Bring back the R101/R102, best form of flight ever...

A320-200

foxhoundone wrote: »

On landing they're on reasonably low power settings giving off low amounts of pollution, hmm what about reverse thrust

Reverse isn't used every landing.Noise abatement, runway length etc. might not warrant it.
It is used as much as possible to save on the brakes. Even when its used i the MAX N1 is 70%. Most PF's would use 40-50 N1 max.
On approach the N1 is around 55-65 N1.

mikemac

foxhoundone wrote: »

all our heavy industry shiped to the mainland.

To the mainland :eek:

Quick question foxhoundone.
A quick google search shows the airport was built in 1937 and became a commerical airport in 1983
You want to limit flight so can you tell us who was in the area first, you or the airport?

foxhoundone

well the city airport started with only a few flights a day, and test planes from SHORTS[THE AIRBUS}
now its up to 36+ and their looking to extend past 2300hrs landing times{they start cranking up those planes at about 0300hrs in the morning} thats almost 24/7 operation with blanant lack of comunication with local residents,.. if you lived less than a hundred metres from that racket ud protest to
an just for a bit of history they manufacterd the sunderland flieing boat at SHORTS
which spoted the BISMARK,..
oh yeah my family has lived here since we were shiped here as slaves from scotland 400 odd yrs ago by the english,,,.. LMAO

Flyer1

You've a terrible argument foxhounde and you've no facts to back it up. I'd happily swap houses with you to live that near an airport.

DeVore

Flyer1, there IS an "ignore" option if you dont want to see it, but I dont think you can say "no one is to talk about that in here".



Thats my job!


But back on topic (and FoxHoundOne... you took this off topic with the first reply... *wags finger*, start a new thread, dont hijack someone elses....).


What I would like to know is: If a captain said "I think I want more reserve fuel then that" would he get it? Would it affect his promotion possibilities or his job? Would he think that it might?

I absolutely HATE Ryanair because of the treatment of my father a year ago but I acknoledge what they have done for the aviation industry in terms of cheaper flights. I dont think that lets them cut corners though and I'm interested to know if those corners are being cut or pressure is there to cut them while the company washes its hands...

"Fuel Reserve vs Flight Costs" does seem very much like "Passenger Safety versus Corporate Profits". N'est Pas?

DeV.

Sizzler

Was out with a guy from easyjet about 2 months ago and he told me that they were instructed to shut down one engine as soon as they landed and also instructed to adjust flight plans for the optimum fuel consumption.

Probably not shocking but plenty of airlines not adopting this practice to be honest !

wittymoniker

good airanship to shut down engine(s) on taxi in but most have time limits before they should be shut down, ie 3 mins at idle.
flight plan fuel is always, by definition, sufficient for the sector but captains, esp in low fares, high frequency ops, have huge experience of the destinations they operate to so will know if they can expect holding, extended vectors, speed control, etc. most will pad or round up final fuel required, always have and always will. the final decision will always rest with the captain, (s)he will take whatever fuel (s)he wants and if needs must, will explain the decision after the event. any extra uplift is recorded on the voyage report so usually no explanation needed.
think this whole thing was just a slow news day or a ryanair bashing exercise.

*Kol*

Yes it's good practice to take on the correct amount of fuel rather than tankering around unnecessary fuel. There are huge savings to be made. Shutting down an engine on the taxi in would also provide savings but it depends on the airport you are in. As wittymoniker said you need to leave them for 5 mins to cool down. In some airports you could be at the gate by that time.

DeVore

If the captain has to explain why (s)he took on extra fuel then thats going to play away from optimal passenger safety neh?? Surely that plays on their mind and there is pressure there for the pilots to keep the head down and not rock the boat.

So what we are saying is that (to a small extent) some airlines are willing to increase the risk to passengers to lower costs??


I actually find that both hard, and easy to believe.

I dont like the idea of fuel load being in the hands of those people any more....

DeV.

DeVore

In fact just about everything in this piece is pretty scary....

This is just quite simply.... fncked up! :eek:

DeV.

FlutterinBantam

I wouldn't panic.

Most airlines have standard fuel loads for various legs which can vary based on fuel cost at a particular airport, or operational requirements

For instance the standard fuel for an A320 DUB-LHR might be 6000kgs.

Flight crew always have to option to alter this for operational or other requirements.
Safety is not compromised.
What the airlines are trying to do is weed out the dude who alwaysseems to take the extra 500kgs or tonne for no particular reason.

They are out there

foxhoundone

i take it no one wants to answer the question how much fuel does a plane use for takoff/landing, i cant see the residents group closing the airport down but at least we can moniter and report facts when we have issues, with managment
thnks,.. sydenham{past RAF} local residents group


R101/R102,... they where the british made versions of the zeplanes {both crashed though }

BobTheBeat

I dont think fuel burn data is easily available (or sfc's I think they call it), especially during take off. Check out this.

axer

foxhoundone wrote: »

i take it no one wants to answer the question how much fuel does a plane use for takoff/landing, i cant see the residents group closing the airport down but at least we can moniter and report facts when we have issues, with managment
thnks,.. sydenham{past RAF} local residents group

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/4730/ wrote:

The current most common 737 is the 737-300. Here are some very rough values, that a certain airline uses to compute manual flight plans incase the computer system fails.
Climb - 2950lbs / 15mins
Cruise - 5500lbs/hr
Descent - 600lbs / 20mins
Hold - 2650 / 30mins
Alternate - 1950 / 20mins
Min arrival fuel - 6300lbs
Recomended arrival fuel - 8300lbs
These numbers were based on a 27000lbs payload (approx 130pax plus bags)

.

FlutterinBantam

Indeed, far too many variables such as weight/weather/climb angle/pressure/temp and such just to name a few.

wittymoniker

as i said, there is always sufficient fuel for a given sector, no such thing as standard fuel, it can be different on a sector in the morning and the same one in the evening. ie, fuel to: start up, taxi, destination, approach to mins and go around, furthest alternate, 30mins holding and 5% contingency of all of the above. airlines have whole departments dedicated to flight planning to calculate what is required depending on weather, level, route and even individual aircraft.
fuel tankered costs arount 1.5 to 3% penalty on burn depending on sector length. not very expensive to carry a bit of padding.

FlutterinBantam

wittymoniker wrote: »

as i said, there is always sufficient fuel for a given sector, no such thing as standard fuel, it can be different on a sector in the morning and the same one in the evening. ie, fuel to: start up, taxi, destination, approach to mins and go around, furthest alternate, 30mins holding and 5% contingency of all of the above. airlines have whole departments dedicated to flight planning to calculate what is required depending on weather, level, route and even individual aircraft.
fuel tankered costs arount 1.5 to 3% penalty on burn depending on sector length. not very expensive to carry a bit of padding.

I think you will find that most airlines especially on dense shorthaul routes will have a standard fuel figure for a particular a/c type as an opening number.

You gotta start somewhere Cap'n;)

Flyer1

See this is what REALLY annoys me. People saying " Ryanair cut corners, etc ". They simply cannot do this ! Aviation is so tightly regulated that an airline simple can NOT cut corners. If a captain feels he needs more fuel due to winds aloft, alternate diversions etc. it's his word and he gets it. He didn't spend 3 years bursting his nuts and spending thousands of €'s to jeopradise a €45 million aircraft and it's passengers.

Ryanair have one of the best safety records in the game, they've never had a serious accident in all the years. The aircraft they operate are all less than 7 years old and regularly maintained !

If your Dad had trouble with them that's poor luck. You find me an airline that has never ever had trouble with any passengers. I've flown with Ryanair several times, and I have to say I love the no hassle, crap free way they go about travelling.

FlutterinBantam

Flyer1 wrote: »

See this is what REALLY annoys me. People saying " Ryanair cut corners, etc ". They simply cannot do this ! Aviation is so tightly regulated that an airline simple can NOT cut corners. If a captain feels he needs more fuel due to winds aloft, alternate diversions etc. it's his word and he gets it. He didn't spend 3 years bursting his nuts and spending thousands of €'s to jeopradise a €45 million aircraft and it's passengers.

Ryanair have one of the best safety records in the game, they've never had a serious accident in all the years. The aircraft they operate are all less than 7 years old and regularly maintained !

If your Dad had trouble with them that's poor luck. You find me an airline that has never ever had trouble with any passengers. I've flown with Ryanair several times, and I have to say I love the no hassle, crap free way they go about travelling.

About the only thing that's free!!!



Sorry!

wittymoniker

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I think you will find that most airlines especially on dense shorthaul routes will have a standard fuel figure for a particular a/c type as an opening number.

You gotta start somewhere Cap'n;)

just drawing on my own experience!:o

diverdriver

Foxhoundone, you are on a loser there. I don't know what the movements are like at Belfast City airport. but I doubt if it's enough to materially effect the health of the locals considering the fact that the airport is in Belfast itself with all the pollution from trucks and cars that implies.

As for the Ryanair fuel reserve thing. Well apart from it being the usual Ryanair bashing exercise. Which frankly is almost deserved due to O'Leary's arrogant attitude. Well it's exaggerated, all airlines want to minimise tankering fuel around. I remember calling a Captain at an airport in England and warning him that they were on the warpath in Ops at his plan to buy fuel at a higher cost at his destination. He re-checked his reserves and decided he could do without it. In truth he was being a bit conservative in thinking of buying fuel at all. As a pilot myself, I understand that. But he didn't really need it.

The difference is that my airline didn't put it in a memo in the antagonistic way that seems to permeate Ryanair, thanks to MOL and his cronies. This leads to situations where the process is promptly leaked to the press by disaffected employees.

The reality is that the pilots will ensure they have enough fuel because to do otherwise would be dangerous to them. The Captain is responsible, simple as that.

foxhoundone

Foxhoundone, you are on a loser there. I know what the movements are like at Belfast City airport. but I doubt if it's enough to materially effect the health of the locals considering the fact that the airport is in Belfast itself with all the pollution from trucks and cars that implies.:mad:

Well your not as informed as you like to think you are.
theres the holywood/ kinnegar/ north down/south down and greater belfast groups, all petioning their local MLAs for greater monitering and control into belfast city airport, as for cars vans and generel public transport, theres the newpark and ride scheme , also the cycle to work scheme, {which im a member}, remember belfast got ride of coal fires an now were gas/oil depndant cleared the smog wonderfully..
REMEMBER WEE APPLES GROW BIG.:D

Flyer1

But Giant apple tree's are hard to make fall down.

foxhoundone

Flyer1 wrote: »

But Giant apple tree's are hard to make fall down.

is that why american airlines bought out british airways so they could switch prodution{airbus} from europe to america{more jobs for the septic tanks}:D

FlutterinBantam

No.

highlydebased

foxhoundone wrote: »

is that why american airlines bought out british airways so they could switch prodution{airbus} from europe to america{more jobs for the septic tanks}:D

This thread has gotten seriously off topic...

diverdriver

Say what? Are you sure you're not seeing into the future. I don't remember that happening? LOL!