Another Ryanair fuel "shortage" tonight?

FWVT

A friend is flying back to DUB from Warsaw tonight. The outbound flight (8011) from Dublin was on descent to Warsaw when it diverted to Lodz. The Ryanair site states this was "due to fog at Warsaw". The metar at the time of diversion quoted 250 m vis in FZFG, with TEMPO 150 m.

METAR EPWA 281900Z VRB02KT 0250 R33/0300N FZFG BKN001 M02/M02 Q1014 TEMPO 0150 FZFG=

Now, my point is that two other Ryanairs (from Weeze and Standsted) coming around 15 minutes behind continued on to land at Warsaw, as by this time visibility had improved to 400 m and forecast to increase further.

METAR EPWA 281930Z 27004KT 0400 R33/0600N FZFG BKN001 M01/M01 Q1015 BECMG 0600 FZFG=

I am wondering if the Dublin crew made a hasty decision to divert as soon as they were made aware that they may have to sit it out for a while up there to see how things went at Warsaw. Was that decision based on their fuel situation? No other flights diverted from Warsaw as far as I could see. Is this another case of Ryanair carrying the bare minimum?

This decision has now meant that those waiting at the boarding gate at Warsaw have had to be bused the 2-hour ride to Lodz to take the plane that has been sitting idly by all this time as conditions have been do-able at Warsaw. They're now due into DUB at around 0230 instead of the original 2315.

I'm not a Ryanair basher but in this case I see no other explanation for the hasty diversion. Hours have passed and conditions have been ok for them to take off from Lodz and continue to Warsaw, saving the pax hours of hassle.

EDIT: The best bit is that the flight from Lodz is down as On Time on their site!

DEPARTURE FLIGHT ROUTE ARRIVAL STATUS
21:15 FR 8012 Lodz - Dublin 23:15 ON TIME

Growler!!!

FWVT wrote: »

A friend is flying back to DUB from Warsaw tonight. The outbound flight (8011) from Dublin was on descent to Warsaw when it diverted to Lodz. The Ryanair site states this was "due to fog at Warsaw".

I am wondering if the Dublin crew made a hasty decision to divert as soon as they were made aware that they may have to sit it out for a while up there to see how things went at Warsaw. Was that decision based on their fuel situation? No other flights diverted from Warsaw as far as I could see. Is this another case of Ryanair carrying the bare minimum.

A very sensationalist thread title to say the least. Indicating an operator dispatched with fuel below the legal limit ie. "shortage".

Not knowing what the taf said and just going from the earlier metar indicating worsening vis, the crew may have contacted Ops and the decision was made to divert early to save wasting fuel in the hold over the airport.

Another possibility is that the aircraft may have been downgraded to CAT I only.

There may have been a new captain at the controls with reduced operating minima.

As you can see there can be many reasons for a diversion. Once the decision has been made Ops will then start the ball rolling to move pax by road. A bus load from the destination airport to the the diversion airport, load the aircraft and let it depart back to base. The coach can then bring the off loaded pax to their original destination.

The fact that other aircraft made it in has no bearing on the matter.

It sucks for your friend - i can empathise with them as I've experienced these delays while operating crew and as a pax.

highlydebased

Outside limits perhaps for CatII/III landing because of a/c weight

tippilot

Are we now at the stage here where every operational command decision is scrutinised without any access to the relevant information because some armchair expert's friend has been mildly inconvienced?


Fuel shortage? Pfft.

APM

Reduced Operating Minima for new captains - American thing. Doesn't happen in Europe. A new Captain in Ryanair can land Cat IIIA on day 1. 200M/125/75 RVR required.

Too Heavy to land Cat 2/3? No. Aircraft can be safely landed up to max landing weight. And in a dire emergency I will happily do it over max landing weight too...just Boeing haven't tested it therefore it isn't certified to do so.


..........Next?

Oscar Bravo

They diverted due to Fog,thats about it. Why mention fuel shortage,theres no need to.

sparrowcar

FWVT

So if it were the other way around and a flight bound for Dublin diverted to Shannon (around the same distance away as Łódź is from Warsaw), but just as it was landing the conditions at Dublin improved, you would not question why they would remain on the ground in Shannon and bus the passengers down? Wouldn't it make more sense to recommence the trip to Dublin?

They were left outside in freezing conditions for an hour waiting for the bus in Warsaw. The flight finally landed at 0320, four hours late. I would call this more than a slight inconvenience. I'd like to see if some of the posters here would be so flippant if they were on the receiving end.

markpb

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

They diverted due to Fog,thats about it. Why mention fuel shortage,theres no need to.

Is it possible, under those circumstances, to take off again and fly to the original destination? I'm sure getting it all organised is non-trivial but I'd imagine it would suit the passengers onboard and the company (assuming the plane and crew had further flights that day) a lot better?

devnull

Warsaw-Chopin is handling more flights than originally planned since that all Wizz and Ryanair flights normally operating to the secondary airport (Modlin) are diverting there until at least April due to the closure of the runway at the later.

At times this is causing congestion which has resulted sometimes in circling several times before they are able to land, I'm not saying that this happened in this situation, I don't know, but I'm just stating that it could be a factor.

In any case, as I've outlined before on here, there have been occasions in the past when EI have diverted flights due for Warsaw to Berlin, which is a lot further than Lodz even though at the time of touching down in Berlin Warsaw had reopened. They reached Warsaw, by bus, almost 24 hours after the flight left Dublin.

My point being is that such things happen to all airlines at sometime or other, and really of some of the diversions I have seen, where it takes 2 hours to arrange a bus and sometimes well over 600km in winter conditions, it was not that bad.

I believe WAW is CAT II

happy_head

It must be so annoying as a real captain or FO to have armchair pilots and Keyboard pilots like the OP scrutinising decisions you made. Nobody here was in the cockpit with the flight crew so you cant possibly know why that decision was made. Would your friend be happier arriving 2 hours late to his destination or being peeled up off the runway surface by fire and rescue?

LeftBase

The most glaring possibility is that Warsaw was fogged in and they diverted for that simple reason.

If it cleared while they were enroute to Lodz perhaps the winds would not favour a return to Warsaw.

Perhaps Warsaw would clear and then fog over again as is very possible and then the crew would have burned through their diversion fuel and had to declare a fuel emergency!. I'm sure a memo may have gone round to try if possible to avoid having to do that for the next while!

It's also possible that Lodz could fog over and they would be left high and dry, so it was best to get on the ground asap!

bombs away

I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of these idiotic threads are started by journalists fishing for a story where there is'nt one. Slow news day at the office eh?

bluecode

happy_head wrote: »

It must be so annoying as a real captain or FO to have armchair pilots and Keyboard pilots like the OP scrutinising decisions you made.

I think we can safely say that at least one Captain has been annoyed :mad: by this thread.

Me? I would have should gone into the hold for a few more minutes, then made at least three more attempts to get in, right down to minimums each time. Then when the fuel is just above critical, divert when the rules dictate I have to declare a fuel emergency. But on the way to Lodz I would monitor the Metars and if it improved at Warsaw I would have immediately swung a 180 back to Warsaw. After all once fog begins to clear it never comes back. Everyone knows that.:rolleyes: In any case surely that's Ryanair SOP.

Simple really. But of course none of that would have been neccessary. As we know the following two flights got in. So all they had to do was hold for a few more minutes and bingo, they were in. It so obvious with all that hindsight.:cool:

At the very least the crew should have consulted the passengers and asked for suggestions. Perhaps a vote. Bloody bus drivers as Michael O'Leary might say. :P

Actually I'm off to practice that very scenario on my FSX.

Growler!!!

APM wrote: »

Reduced Operating Minima for new captains - American thing. Doesn't happen in Europe.


..........Next?

Really? Doesn't happen? I'm looking at our Ops part A manual in front of me and its in black and white. And its a European operation i work for!!

bluecode wrote: »

I think we can safely say that at least one Captain has been annoyed :mad: by this thread.

Me? I would have should gone into the hold for a few more minutes, then made at least three more attempts to get in, right down to minimums each time. Then when the fuel is just above critical, divert when the rules dictate I have to declare a fuel emergency. But on the way to Lodz I would monitor the Metars and if it improved at Warsaw I would have immediately swung a 180 back to Warsaw. After all once fog begins to clear it never comes back. Everyone knows that.:rolleyes: In any case surely that's Ryanair SOP.

Simple really. But of course none of that would have been neccessary. As we know the following two flights got in. So all they had to do was hold for a few more minutes and bingo, they were in. It so obvious with all that hindsight.:cool:

At the very least the crew should have consulted the passengers and asked for suggestions. Perhaps a vote. Bloody bus drivers as Michael O'Leary might say. :P

Actually I'm off to practice that very scenario on my FSX.

Jeez, i thought there was a limit on the amount of smilies per post.........

bluecode

Growler!!! wrote: »

Jeez, i thought there was a limit on the amount of smilies per post.........

Well I only needed a tongue in cheek smilie! Taking no chances!

A320

bombs away wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of these idiotic threads are started by journalists fishing for a story where there is'nt one. Slow news day at the office eh?

I agree,especially the way the MET was put up straight away like you see on other forums the second there's an incident

FWVT

Well done lads, very intelligent posts. :rolleyes:

Now does anyone want to give a grown-up opinion as to why they would remain on the ground for 4 hours at Lodz? There were a few more arrivals at Warsaw during that period but not a huge amount. Can't see how they wouldn't have been able to accomodate that flight.

sparrowcar

FWVT wrote: »

Well done lads, very intelligent posts. :rolleyes:

Now does anyone want to give a grown-up opinion as to why they would remain on the ground for 4 hours at Lodz? There were a few more arrivals at Warsaw during that period but not a huge amount. Can't see how they wouldn't have been able to accomodate that flight.

How to win friends and influence people

phonypony

FWVT wrote: »

Well done lads, very intelligent posts. :rolleyes:

Now does anyone want to give a grown-up opinion as to why they would remain on the ground for 4 hours at Lodz? There were a few more arrivals at Warsaw during that period but not a huge amount. Can't see how they wouldn't have been able to accomodate that flight.

The cost of flying a 738 full of pax and bags a relatively short distance versus busing two plane loads of pax. The choice is surely a no-brainer for a lo-co. They're not profitable with reasonable fares for no reason.

LeftBase

FWVT wrote: »

Now does anyone want to give a grown-up opinion as to why they would remain on the ground for 4 hours at Lodz?

Any idea how much it costs to operate a 737?

FWVT

phonypony wrote: »

The cost of flying a 738 full of pax and bags a relatively short distance versus busing two plane loads of pax. The choice is surely a no-brainer for a lo-co. They're not profitable with reasonable fares for no reason.

My point exactly. So basically fcuk the passenger in order to save a few quid. Ryanair's motto alright.

The outbound flight left DUB at 1710 and it finally landed back in DUB at 0320, a full shift of over 10 hours. What are the crew duty time limits? Isn't there something about 8 hours?

highlydebased

APM wrote: »

Too Heavy to land Cat 2/3? No. Aircraft can be safely landed up to max landing weight. And in a dire emergency I will happily do it over max landing weight too...just Boeing haven't tested it therefore it isn't certified to do so.

The only reason I say it is because a couple of months back (October) I was due to fly Bristol-Malta with Ryanair. EGGD 221950Z 04004KT 0200 R27/0350 R09/0350 -DZ FG VV/// 12/12 Q1022 was weather at the time

However it diverted to BHX where the flight then operated from but to cut a long story short the crew then told us they were too heavy to land at Bristol in the weather. Other Ryanair/easyjet came and went from BRS in the meantime.

IngazZagni

FWVT wrote: »

My point exactly. So basically fcuk the passenger in order to save a few quid. Ryanair's motto alright.

The outbound flight left DUB at 1710 and it finally landed back in DUB at 0320, a full shift of over 10 hours. What are the crew duty time limits? Isn't there something about 8 hours?

At least they got him home that night. Many legacy carriers would just cancel the flight. Have a refund or come back tomorrow. It should be noted that WAW is cat 2, not 3. So what if the weather improved, what if i didn't though? Maybe the weather at the alternates was being downgraded, prompting the decision to divert sooner rather than later. Ops will generally make the call whether they want the crew to wait at the alternate or continue to fly to original destination provided the crew are happy to do so. Both scenarios happen and will depend on a number of things.

Ryanair are not even meant to fly to WAW and are only doing so as a result of the closure of WMI. Thus they would be bottom of the list in terms of who the airport will accept as a primary destination.

Having the most on time flights and fewest cancellations hardly equals a motto of "screw the passengers". You friend got unlucky, that's it. This is the aviation industry. Things don't always go smoothly and any number of things can affect the operation.

As for duty time limits, it can usually go up to about 13 hours per day. Some discretion on that may be allowed but rest periods would have to be altered then. So well within limits.

Growler!!!

OP, Im not too sure what your agenda is here. Theres a certain amount of bandwagoneering, you've obviously seen the other reports of diversions due to aircraft approaching Final Reserve Fuel and attributing this to your friends predicament.

The thread title puts into question a companies fuel policy, then you question the crews descion making when you (and all of us) do not have all the facts. Now you are questioning Flight Time Limitations without any idea of the requirements????

The first number of replies you recieved were from proffessional pilots who explained quite clearly some of the issues you did not consider. There were a few flippant remarks and you chose to respond to them.....

As was mentioned above, your friend and all the other pax were unlucky. That is all, it happens and will happen again.

devnull

I agree that with Ryanair a cancellation always seems to be the absolute last resort and they don't tend to cancel as lightly as most legacy carriers which has been of benefit to me a few times in the past, sure sometimes it's meant a few hours of delays but I'd rather that than a total cancellation.

Even if an outbound Ryanair flight is diverted providing it's no more than around two and a half hours by road they normally bus the passengers form the original airport to the airport the flight diverted to, then send the same buses back with the passengers to their original booked destination.

Many other airlines will just bus the passengers on the outbound flight to their original destination and cancel the return flight and just fly back to base with crew as the above poster said which I don't think is a good outcome for anyone since it'll be a few days before every person booked on that flight gets rebooked on another one with capacity.

By the way, when WAW is closed nearly all of the legacy carriers divert to much further away but larger airports such as Krakow or Berlin for example since legacy carriers deem Lodz as being too small. You will find normally with Ryanair they will divert to an airport that is pretty close to their destination and even operate from there regardless of if they serve it or not.

Even this last week FR have been operating the return legs of diverted outbound flights from the main airport in Venice when Treviso has been closed due to poor weather and even some flights from Brussels when Charleroi has been closed. Now I'm sure this caused some headaches for someone in FR since they'd be boarding from an airport not on their route network. But they worked it out and it may have been much less hassle just to cancel the thing.

I agree that getting delayed for hours is not the best experience, I've been there before, but really as far as diversions go not only did the return flight not get cancelled it also was at the nearest airport to you. If BA flights to Warsaw get diverted they'd go to Berlin, same with Air France, as such carriers rarely divert to any other airports than those on their route network.

Ken812

It's reactions to threads like this one that put me off posting

youtheman

bluecode wrote: »

Me? I would have should gone into the hold for a few more minutes, then made at least three more attempts to get in, right down to minimums each time.

I know for a fact that RYR absolutely forbid more than 2 approaches. The idea that you keep 'giving it a lash' until you get lucky is not how it happens. The Manx disaster in Cork was proof of what happens when you don't call it a day early.

LeftBase

youtheman wrote: »

I know for a fact that RYR absolutely forbid more than 2 approaches. The idea that you keep 'giving it a lash' until you get lucky is not how it happens. The Manx disaster in Cork was proof of what happens when you don't call it a day early.

I believe he was being a little tongue in cheek!

IngazZagni

youtheman wrote: »

I know for a fact that RYR absolutely forbid more than 2 approaches. The idea that you keep 'giving it a lash' until you get lucky is not how it happens. The Manx disaster in Cork was proof of what happens when you don't call it a day early.

I think he was being sarcastic

Growler!!! wrote: »

Jeez, i thought there was a limit on the amount of smilies per post.........

Clearly not enough smilies :P

aramush

Ara now, Ryanair get a lot of stick for no reason at all at all, they offer a service to take you where you want to go with no frills. If you go by their rules e.g. baggage and check in, there will be no problems and you end up getting a cheap flight yourself and on the majority of occasions, it arrives on time.

People who complain are usually those who like to make up their own rules and pay little attention to whats required of them.

bluecode

Ken812 wrote: »

It's reactions to threads like this one that put me off posting

A simple question that isn't loaded with implications of lack of professionalism on the part of the crew. Or one that isn't accusatory in tone will always get a good answer. As pointed out many of the contributors to this forum are commercial pilots including airline pilots, some Captains. Insulting them or their colleagues is not the best way of getting a good answer.

If the OP had simply asked why something like that could happen in simple terms. The reaction would have been quite different.

Suasdaguna1

bluecode wrote: »

If the OP had simply asked why something like that could happen in simple terms. The reaction would have been quite different.

OP 's first post comes across like the beginning of a kangaroo court session. I'm staying away also.

rubberdiddies

bombs away wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that a lot of these idiotic threads are started by journalists fishing for a story where there is'nt one. Slow news day at the office eh?

i think some posters here need to realise that not everyone who browses or posts on this site is an expert in aviation. too many times the know-alls on here let loose with their 'smart' comments.

ok, so the thread title shouldnt have mentioned 'fuel shortage', but the OP, who is most likely a non aviation expert was simply asking a question.

i myself am a fan of Ryanair, but I would also be curious to know why the flight didnt take off again from Lodz and continue to Warsaw if it was operating again. surely that would have been a quicker option (and possibly cheaper for Ryanair)?

Again, as I'm not an expert, presumably like the OP, I'm curious, simply because I don't know the answer

LeftBase

rubberdiddies wrote: »

i myself am a fan of Ryanair, but I would also be curious to know why the flight didnt take off again from Lodz and continue to Warsaw if it was operating again. surely that would have been a quicker option (and possibly cheaper for Ryanair)?

The most likely reasons are:

1) It's cheaper to put people on buses than it is to fuel and pay handling on a 737

2) The pilots would be out of hours before they returned to home base of they flew from Lodz to Warsaw.

devnull

Doesn't always work that way however and can end up being worse for the passengers such as what happened in Krakow yesterday depending on which airline you were flying with.

Krakow was closed due to fog, FR landed a few flights at Katowice, around 100km away and then coached passengers from Krakow to Katowice and operated the flights from there and sent the passengers back to Krakow on the coaches as well. They arrived just under two and a half hours late.

Meanwhile Easyjet, refuse to land at Katowice and always divert to Warsaw, over 3 times the distance from Krakow than Katowice. So they then landed at Warsaw and kept all their passengers on the plane for almost three hours waiting for Krakow to open. Open it did eventually and almost four and a half hours late they arrived in Krakow by plane.

What about Lufthansa? Well since Krakow was closed due to fog upon crossing the German and Polish border, they just landed in Warsaw, kicked everyone off and cancelled the return flight and flew straight back to base.

bluecode

rubberdiddies wrote: »

i think some posters here need to realise that not everyone who browses or posts on this site is an expert in aviation. too many times the know-alls on here let loose with their 'smart' comments.

ok, so the thread title shouldnt have mentioned 'fuel shortage', but the OP, who is most likely a non aviation expert was simply asking a question.

i myself am a fan of Ryanair, but I would also be curious to know why the flight didnt take off again from Lodz and continue to Warsaw if it was operating again. surely that would have been a quicker option (and possibly cheaper for Ryanair)?

Again, as I'm not an expert, presumably the the OP, I'm curious, simply because I don't know the answer

As I pointed out in my post. It wasn't the question that was the problem. It was the tone of the question. Whether you like Ryanair or not. Questioning the actions of the crew and implying their actions were I quote: 'hasty' and suggesting they were operating on the limits: " Was that decision based on their fuel situation? No other flights diverted from Warsaw as far as I could see. Is this another case of Ryanair carrying the bare minimum?"

Remember some of the 'know alls' you refer to are actually airline pilots. Insulting them isn't a good way of getting a sensible answer out of them.

The irony of all this is seen from devilnull's contribution. Ryanair come out best in that particular situation.

FWVT

LeftBase wrote: »

The most likely reasons are:

1) It's cheaper to put people on buses than it is to fuel and pay handling on a 737

Ah well then sure why not land in say Leipzig and bus them the rest of the way if that's the case? Passengers paid to be flown from Warsaw and that was totally possible within a reasonable amount of time following the diversion. Instead, Ryanair chose to think only of profit and delayed everyone as a result. A windy night a few weeks ago a Ryanair flight due into DUB landed in Shannon due to not being able to enter the hold (they stated they didn't have enough fuel). Winds shifted soon after and they took off again and continued on to DUB. They could have done similar this time too.

2) The pilots would be out of hours before they returned to home base of they flew from Lodz to Warsaw.

No they wouldn't. Think about it. As they were landing in Lodz conditions were already fine in Warsaw and other flights (including two Ryanairs) were landing there. They could have quickly refuelled and recommenced the trip to Warsaw within an hour. 30 minutes turn-around at Warsaw and they're back in the air only 90 minutes after the initial diversion, not the four hours that they actually were. Could have saved over two hours on their total shift.

LeftBase

FWVT wrote: »

Ah well then sure why not land in say Leipzig and bus them the rest of the way if that's the case? Passengers paid to be flown from Warsaw and that was totally possible within a reasonable amount of time following the diversion. Instead, Ryanair chose to think only of profit and delayed everyone as a result. A windy night a few weeks ago a Ryanair flight due into DUB landed in Shannon due to not being able to enter the hold (they stated they didn't have enough fuel). Winds shifted soon after and they took off again and continued on to DUB. They could have done similar this time too.

That was likely an aircraft based in Dublin that had to be positioned there anyway.

FWVT wrote: »

No they wouldn't. Think about it. As they were landing in Lodz conditions were already fine in Warsaw and other flights (including two Ryanairs) were landing there. They could have quickly refuelled and recommenced the trip to Warsaw within an hour. 30 minutes turn-around at Warsaw and they're back in the air only 90 minutes after the initial diversion, not the four hours that they actually were. Could have saved over two hours on their total shift.

If the pilots land in Lodz with a less than the flight time from Warsaw to home base + the 30mins back to Warsaw from Lodz worth of legal time left in their flight hours allowance for the day the aircraft is left stranded away from base and that is a huge fly in the Ops ointment that will create a scheduling and Ops nightmare for a well oiled machine like Ryanair! The crew would arrive in Warsaw and be over hours when they arrived back at base. They would be down an aircraft and an entire crew for the morning schedule!

G-unit10

Big fan and regular flyer with Ryanair but was a bit annoyed two months ago when my flight to gatwick was diverted to stansted because '' we didn't have enough fuel to stay in the hold for 15 minutes due to fog at gatwick''. Bit mad how the 15 minute delay would probably still have resulted in the on-time music upon landing as per the stated arrival time. Landed in stansted, re-fueled and headed to gatwick, all in all arrived 90 minutes late. Surely this should have been avoided- 15 minutes for god sake!

Roger_007

Everyone knows about the Ryanair culture. I don't know why people choose to fly with them and then complain. I use them occasionally and just accept what they offer. If I can use another airline, I do. All this reminds me of people who complain about television program's when they just could turn it off.

FWVT

LeftBase wrote: »

If the pilots land in Lodz with a less than the flight time from Warsaw to home base + the 30mins back to Warsaw from Lodz worth of legal time left in their flight hours allowance for the day the aircraft is left stranded away from base and that is a huge fly in the Ops ointment that will create a scheduling and Ops nightmare for a well oiled machine like Ryanair! The crew would arrive in Warsaw and be over hours when they arrived back at base. They would be down an aircraft and an entire crew for the morning schedule!

Sorry I don't follow. Are you saying the Lodz-Warsaw flight would put them over their hours if they were then to continue back to Dublin? Do the four hours sitting on the tarmac at Lodz not count at all then and it's only flight hours that are counted? Surely say a 30 minute hold at Dublin would cause the same problem then too? As it turned out they were on duty for 10 hours from leaving Dublin.

devnull

G-unit10 wrote: »

Big fan and regular flyer with Ryanair but was a bit annoyed two months ago when my flight to gatwick was diverted to stansted because '' we didn't have enough fuel to stay in the hold for 15 minutes due to fog at gatwick''.

What every crew needs to ensure is they have enough fuel to divert to another airport should the need arise. This doesn't mean they only can wait 15 minutes for Gatwick to open. They would have had much more.

However they need to ensure they have enough fuel IF that Gatwick does not re-open in 15 minutes to divert elsewhere as nothing is certain and there becomes a point where it's safer to divert rather than keep waiting.

By the way, the usual Aer Lingus alternative airport for Warsaw is Berlin. A friend of mine was on a flight to Warsaw, which was closed due to snow and diverted to Berlin in the winter which was a nightmare. When they landed in Berlin, Warsaw was open there, but passengers were kicked out, a 15 hour bus ride and the plane flew back to base empty since to fly to Warsaw and then do the return flight would have put the crew out of hours.

I'm sure he wished he'd landed in Lodz.

Growler!!!

Flight Time Limitations are based on sectors flown. The basic is 13 hours flight duty. This reduces by 30 minutes from the 3rd sector onwards. Ryanair normally operate a 6 sector day so duty period would be 13 - 2 = 11 hours. Add another sector to position from diversion airport to destination airport that reduces the flight duty to 10 hours 30 mins.

Captains discretion could be used but that depends on how the crew are feeling. You don't want a tired crew flying your friend, do you?

As you can see the crew where close to max duty hours for that day. A decision was made - usually not by the crew, not to operate the positioning flight back to original destination airport.

You may not age with the decision but that is the reality of aviation.

Irish Steve

Another factor that's not been mentioned in all of this is that the original destination may not have been able to accept the aircaft in, if the fog has been limiting arrivals for any length of time, it may also have restricted departures, and that could have led to a situation where parking stands may not be available for an incoming aircraft.

There is also the cost of an additional landing, if the alternate is only an hour away by bus, the beancounters at head office will likely decline the option of a reposition.

Another factor is that if you are on the ground at an alternate, before you refuel and leave to try again to get into your destination, you need to be VERY certain that your destination is not about to be closed again by fog, and that the alternate you are about to leave is also not at risk of a change of weather while you are in the air. If your destination goes out again, and your diversion also goes out while you are in the air, things can get "exciting" (bl**dy dangerous) very rapidly, and commercial aviation is not about taking risks, an aircraft safe on the ground at an alternate is a damn sight safer than an aircraft in the air desperately looking for a runway to land on that's still open and within range.

The area that the airlines need to look at in much more detail is communication with passengers. A long time ago now, I was flying Dublin to Bristol one evening, and a family member was collecting me from Bristol, to take me to a family gathering in Exeter, which is about 90 miles by road. Before we even boarded at Dublin, the crew knew that due to fog at Bristol (it was CAT 1 in those days), we were almost certain to divert to Exeter.

I was less than amused to be informed in the hold at Bristol that we were diverting to Exeter, as it meant a family member has a wasted 180 mile trip, which could have been avoided with one phone call before departure, had we been informed about the Bristol weather before boarding, I could have contacted the family and saved them the trip to Bristol, and if we'd managed to get in to Bristol, then I would have had a hour wait, which would have been much better than the wasted trip up and back.

Diversions can and do happen for reasons that go beyond just weather. They are an every day inconvenience in the operation of airlines, and the airlines don't divert lightly, the logistics of the exercise are considerable, if they do divert, its because they have to..

LeftBase

FWVT wrote: »

Sorry I don't follow. Are you saying the Lodz-Warsaw flight would put them over their hours if they were then to continue back to Dublin? Do the four hours sitting on the tarmac at Lodz not count at all then and it's only flight hours that are counted? Surely say a 30 minute hold at Dublin would cause the same problem then too? As it turned out they were on duty for 10 hours from leaving Dublin.

Where I work your limits are based on duty hours. After the 2nd sector it reduces by 30mins. So if you operate 5 sectors in a day your duty max is reduced by 90mins.

You cannot depart on a sector if the planned flight time takes you over that set limit. If you have 2h40min of duty left and are planned to fly 2h30min that is fine. However if you are caught in the hold and flight time is then 2h45mins you have to write up a report explaining the circumstances of the violation. As long as the planned time does not over-run the remaining limit hours when you push back they don't mind too much once the report is filed and it's all ligit.

Budget airlines will push these limits to their max so as to make crews and aircraft more efficient and a slight bug in the system could mess that up and force the aircraft to divert, offload pax and proceed directly to home base for positioning.