The story I did on Airline Pilots complaining that their airlines were forcing them to fly with “Minimum Fuel” requirements is now getting national attention. I am happy MSNBC.COM is featuring the story that has peaked the interest of lawmakers in Washington.
Here’s the deal, with the price of Jet Fuel skyrocketing airlines can save money by carrying less fuel. It means the plane is lighter and burns less fuel in the process. But pilots we spoke with insist it is causing many planes to be rerouted and diverted more often. Their example, when they carry :Minimum Fuel” they don’t have a large enough reserve to circle an airport over and over. That means they need to land at another airport simply because if they don’t, they will run out of fuel.
That seems unacceptable. A commercial pilot I spoke with said, “you don’t want to be at minimum fuel, and then not have the landing gear come down.”
At the very least the problem is inconveniencing passengers by forcing them to land at an airport that was not their final destination.
April 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
You are missing an obvious angle on this story. With all the overcrowding of airports the airlines have figured that if a pilot declares a fuel emergency then they get priority to land. That airline (at the cost of the rest) gets in on time. This improves there federal “on time” rating as well.
No downside… until one crashes.
April 16, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
As a licensed aircraft dispatcher, I must take an extreme exception to the story.
The reporter wants to make it sound as if all of the ASRS reports (ASRS – Aviation Safety Reporting System) with respect to fuel issues were all filed within the previous few months, when the price of Jet fuel went absurd.
However, Mr Grant provides no references as to which ASRS reports he used so that we, and the flying public, can do our own due diligence as to see if the problem is an actual problem, or one made up by a reporter trying to fill some air time.
Also, keep in mind that the ASRS database also contains reports made by corporate pilots, private pilots, military crews; not just Federal Aviation Regulation 121 flight crews. He makes no mention as to if his reporting contains only 121 aircrew submitted reports.
For example, by searching on the “substitute for brains” comment in one ASRS report, you would see that the crew in that one report was behind on their fuel NOT by a overly conservative fuel policy, but by an unforecast change in headwinds causing them to burn into their contingency and reserve fuel. Which can, and does happen; Mother Nature could care less as to how much fuel is loaded onto an airplane. Furthermore, this report was filed in March of 2007, and dealt with a flight operation with a speed restriction due to an inoperative item on the aircraft. Furthermore, if one actually were to read the ENTIRE report, you would see that this crew still landed with adequate reserves on board.
If a crew asks me for additional fuel on top of what is called for in the dispatch release – I do want to know why. It is NOT so that I can tell the crew to go pound sand, for my name is on the release as well; it is so that the crew and I can COLLABORATIVELY determine what is a good fuel amount. If the crew knows something that I do not with respect to how ATC will work their flight into the system, it is the crew’s responsibility to share it with me so, for the next time, we’ll both know.
April 16, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
Ordinarily, I’m happy to see folks recycle things, as it helps the environment, but in MSNBC’s case, all they did April 15th was to re-cycle Grant’s original story from mid-February (Sweeps!) from his home station KXAS in Ft. Worth, Texas.
In keeping with that same spirit, I’ll also recycle my response comments to Grant back then, which I also posted on UncleBarky.com, a Dallas-Ft. Worth site that comments on local media. To wit, Uncle Barky later stated: “That’s possibly the most detailed explanation I’ve ever received on anything in these comments sections, “OPNLguy.” I appreciate the time it took for you to post them. Thank you.
Uncle B | 02.20.08 – 5:55 pm | #
So, grab a cold one, and follow along with this re-run:
Did you happen to catch KXAS’s story of low-fuel airliners? What garbage!
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/153379…945/ detail.html
My comments below…
KXAS’s “news” item on low-fuel airliners is sadly typical of the “scare the snot out of the unknowledgeable viewing public” story that we see during TV’s “sweeps” ratings periods, and the February “sweeps” we’re in now are no exception. Additionally, KXAS was deftly “played” by AA’s pilot union, the Allied Pilots Association (APA), who apparently everyone but KXAS seems to know has been bitterly at odds with AA/AMR management on an assortment of labor issues. In making the on-camera comments, the APA spokespilot has not only thrown their fellow AA employees (i.e. flight dispatchers) under the bus to further the APA’s own agenda, but he’s also given the entire airline industry an unwarranted black eye, not to mention misleading the public.
Here’s what the APA spokespilot didn’t tell anyone, and KXAS was too lazy to research, since the facts would have gotten in the way of the story.
Here in the USA , scheduled airline fuel loads are calculated by a flight dispatcher, who are also airline employees, and are also trained and FAA-licensed just like the pilots are. Dispatchers are not “management” and nearly all in the country are represented by various unions. The dispatcher determines the fuel load and includes it on a legal document called a dispatch release, which the dispatcher also signs. When the captain gets the release prior to their flight, they review the dispatcher’s work, and if they agree with the fuel load and other flight parameters, they too sign the release. In signing, both dispatcher and captain are then indicating joint agreement that the flight can be operated safely, as planned.
Conversely, if a captain doesn’t agree with the dispatcher’s fuel load, nobody is holding a gun to the captain’s head or otherwise “forcing” them to sign the release let alone actually operate the flight—in fact, the captain has a responsibility under the FAA regulations –not- to sign the release in such a case. When disagreements arise, captains and dispatchers are supposed to communicate and come to a compromise that each is agreeable with. Once that happens, the release is amended accordingly, and the flight then can legally operate. Pretty simple, huh?
Another story error is that the captain is the final authority for the fuel load on the aircraft. Not true. There are plenty of situations where dispatchers desire to carry more (not less) fuel than the captain wants due to weather and other operational factors that the captain may not have a full awareness and/or understanding of. Dispatchers have access to a wider variety of weather and other information resources than do the pilots, and the dispatcher works dozens of lights over the course of a shift that provide feedback.
Do unexpected situations and diversions still occur? Sure they do, but the same communications and concurrence mechanism between dispatcher and captain successfully resolve them long before they get to the point of becoming actual tragedies. It might mean that you’ll divert to Podunk for fuel, but no dispatcher or captain who truly respects passenger safety and their ability to retain their FAA license (needed to work, and thus eat) is going to allow a flight to actually run out of fuel.
I’ve been a dispatcher for nearly 30 years (not for AA), and it’s a sad state of affairs for our society when the media becomes a willing participant in another group’s desire to suppress and otherwise obfuscate the facts to further their own agenda and mislead the public in the process.
April 16, 2008 at 7:54 pm |
YOUR QUOTE:
A commercial pilot I spoke with said, “you don’t want to be at minimum fuel, and then not have the landing gear come down.”
The last time I checked, less fuel means less fire! You should want to land with min fuel if your gear wont come down and you need to make a gear up landing, right?
Also you probably should have interviewed a Flight Dispatcher before sending this out. That way at way you would have gotten the whole story instead of just ripping the Dispatchers!
April 16, 2008 at 7:55 pm |
OPNLguy and Dave are spot on and have covered all the angles, but I have to chime in anyway. This “story” is about the biggest piece of garbage I have ever read. My high school journalism teacher would have given me an “F”. Did you even bother to talk to a dispatcher and get their perspective? You did no research at all, you just took what the APA gave you and published it verbatim. Next time, try working for a living.
April 16, 2008 at 7:58 pm |
YOUR QUOTE:
A commercial pilot I spoke with said, “you don’t want to be at minimum fuel, and then not have the landing gear come down.”
The last time I checked, less fuel means less fire! You probably want to land with min fuel if your gear wont come down and you need to make a gear up landing, right?
Also you should have interviewed a Flight Dispatcher before sending this out. That way at way you would have gotten the whole story instead of just ripping the Dispatchers!
April 16, 2008 at 10:36 pm |
It’s interesting that none of those pilots mentioned that there is a regulation governing the minimum fuel requirements for operating a commercial aircraft. Every commercial aircraft that flies above 18,000 feet (flight level 180) is required to file an IFR flight plan. IFR means intstrument flight rules. Flying under these rules puts the aircraft under the control of air traffic controllers during the entire flight. Under this rule, the flight must have enough fuel to make it to the final destination, to the alternate airport filed in the flight plan, and 45 minutes of reserves after that. Airlines usually set minimums that are above this requirement in their SOP as a safety cushion. If the aircraft in your report were flying below these minimum fuel requirements and the pilots were declaring a fuel emergency, they are in violation of the regulation and the FAA would need to take action against the aircrews and the airlines involved.
As a private pilot, if I declare a fuel emergency or ask for priority status during a flight or while on approach to an airport, I am required to file a report with the nearest ATC facility. Filing a NASA ASRS report does not necessarily protect me from FAA action or enforcement. In fact, you can be sure that I would most likely be receiving a call from the nearest FSDO office.
Finally, whether you fly for pleasure as a private pilot or as a professional commercial pilot, every pilot knows that the pilot in command (ie Captain) is the ultimate decision maker. They shouldn’t be afraid to overrule the advice of a dispatcher because the FAA would side with the pilots.
April 17, 2008 at 12:20 am |
Grant,
A quote from your article:
“Under FAA regulations, pilots have the final say on how much fuel they take on board, but they say that when they question the fuel levels suggested in their flight plans, their judgment is frequently challenged.”
Exactly which FAA regulation is it that supports that contention?
To everyone else, no “help” from the audience–I want to see how thorough Grant’s sources and research are.
Ball is in your court, Grant…
April 17, 2008 at 5:21 am |
Actually, to correct AV8R, ALL commercial flights are filed and operated under IFR regulations; whether its a 6 minute flight or a transcontinental flight. Furthermore, once an ASRS report is filed, as long as you have been a good boy to the FAA within the previous 5 years, no certification sanction will be forthcoming.
Additionally, you state that they captain is the ultimate decision maker; NOT in FAR 121 commercial operations. There is JOINT operational control responsibility which places the responsibility for the flight on BOTH the pilot in command AND the aircraft dispatcher. Once you are airborne, the PIC is the ultimate authority (Refer to FAR 91.3), HOWEVER, he can not just overrule the dispatcher willy-nilly; if he wants to proceed not in accordance with the dispatch release, then he must declare an emergency with ATC – and then he can do whatever he wants.
In the article, the one pilot made the comment about the minimum fuel for the flight being 75000, but that he wanted 90000 (my guess this is a B747 – but I cant find that report in the ASRS database at all). Anyway, adding fuel with no real justification (I want it because I want it), is needless, lazy, and now with jet fuel at absurd prices; nothing but wasteful; but remember, it costs fuel (in additional fuel burn), to carry fuel. If he can point to a specific reason (ATC irregularities, winds aloft forecast busts, etc), then sure – let me run the numbers and add fuel. But to add fuel for no definable reason is just wasteful. A friend of mine was dispatching at a major airline at one time; and he showed me where this one captain ALWAYS added a thousand pounds of fuel – regardless of reason and regardless of conditions. So, my friend went ahead and on one dispatch release added the captains thousand – and this captain went ahead and carried an additional thousand out of habit. Completely wasteful.
In the article, the reporter draws in the Avianca 052 crash at JFK back in 1990 – that flight was not even operated under the US Federal Aviation Regulations; the flight departed Columbia (the country), and due to a severe nor’easter ended up getting held a few times coming up the east coast and tried to get into JFK on fumes with tragic results. It was that accident that forced the FAA to come up with a better way to handle aircraft with low fuel (however, the accident crew never communicated their situation to ATC). The last US FAR 121 aircraft that crashed due to fuel exhaustion was a United DC8 going into Portland OR in 1977 or 1978; the aircraft had a gear problem and the flight crew gave the cabin crew way too much time to prepare the cabin for an irregular landing at Portland, and ran out of fuel trying to get back into Portland.
If a captain can point to a specific reason that he wants additional fuel (ATC, weather enroute, etc) – then he can have it. However, just adding fuel on top of release requirements for no definable reason is wasteful, and that I dont think is good airmanship; and neither does any aircraft dispatcher (who is also a certificated airman). Burning into reserve fuel is legal, as long as the flight wasnt planned to burn into reserve fuel (and no flight is).
April 17, 2008 at 10:01 am |
Many of you have asked that I comment. I appreciate all your feedback, but I fear I may have hit a nerve with some of you. No, I did not just make up the reports as one of you claimed, in fact that’s ridiculous! No, it’s not scare tactics either. No one can argue the airlines need to save money; the problem starts when they push the limits. Apparently Congress doesn’t think this is scare tactics either, at least one Senator is now calling for an investigation. Though I realize Congress will investigate anything, including why I didn’t change my socks yesterday.
If you watched my story, you will see it only just scratched the surface, the written article did not.
One reason I did not interview a dispatcher is because the two dispatchers that informed me of the story did not want to go on camera.
Lastly the comment about the Landing gear and less fuel is best just made me laugh. Enough said about that. Keep the comments coming, I enjoy reading them.
April 17, 2008 at 10:55 am |
So, two dispatchers prefer not to go on camera, and you stop there? Were these the only two dispatchers in the DFW Metroplex? Sorry, Grant, that excuse seems pretty weak. It seems much more plausible that no dispatchers were interviewed because they’d have burst the balloon of this BS story, and we couldn’t just have that happen right in the middle of February sweeps, right?
If it sounds like a nerve has been hit, you’re right–it has. I expect the media to inform its audience in a fair and balanced manner, and that includes not taking any one party’s position on an issue to the exclusion of others. I sent you comments after you ran the February story, and got a patronizing response. In the two months that have transpired since your February KXAS story and the April recycling on MSNBC, there was plenty of time for you to have searched for (and found) a dispatcher or two willing to have gone on camera–but again, that would have gutted the story. I guess I just expect more from the media, which is becoming less journalistic and increasingly more disposed to infotainment and only broadcasting selected story elements versus the complete ones, and in context.
Assuming that you’re not going to also blow off this comment as well, how about answering my previous question:
A quote from your article:
“Under FAA regulations, pilots have the final say on how much fuel they take on board, but they say that when they question the fuel levels suggested in their flight plans, their judgment is frequently challenged.”
Exactly which FAA regulation is it that supports that contention?
April 17, 2008 at 11:25 am |
Well, if the dispatchers who told you about the issue didnt want to go on camera, since you were more than willing to go with the pilot union mouthpiece, why not go with the dispatcher union, which for American just so happens to be down in Dallas; called TWU Local 542. The Southwest Airlines dispatchers also are union, and I am sure that one of their higher union types (either TWU or SWA) would’ve been more than happy to go on camera; like the AA captain did.
However, thats if you had spent a fair amount of time actually researching the issue; which I doubt you did. Furthermore, I never claimed that you made up any ASRS report, I just stated that I didn’t find the report you did; there is a major difference between those two statements. The ASRS database goes back several decades, and I didnt feel like sifting through a bunch of pages with “90000″ as a hit trying to find that specific report.
Finally, as a dispatcher, NO management type will ever tell me HOW to dispatch a flight unless they also hold a dispatcher certificate, and are current and qualified to dispatch at my carrier. They can provide their targets as to how much fuel we should be carrying in a perfect world (but we all know that the world is hardly perfect), but it is up to the dispatcher AND the pilot in command and no one else, as to the final fuel load at gate departure. NO ONE has the authority, outside the dispatcher and pilot in command, to order a fuel load for a given flight.
April 17, 2008 at 12:05 pm |
“I appreciate all your feedback, but I fear I may have hit a nerve with some of you.”
I think the feedback is indicative of people’s threshold for “Chicken Little” type reporting. You sir, have demonstrated the worst in reporting here. What has the news media become when your story is no more well done than a back page National Inquirer report?
April 18, 2008 at 2:18 am |
From Grant: A commercial pilot I spoke with said, “you don’t want to be at minimum fuel, and then not have the landing gear come down.”
My comment: Less fuel = less fire!
Grants comment: “Lastly the comment about the Landing gear and less fuel is best just made me laugh”.
My comment was meant to be kinda funny but the quote from that pilot did not make a lot of sense (I also realize every situation is different). Although you would want some fuel to troubleshoot a possible gear problem, you should have at least :45 FAR reserve fuel on board at your intended destination for that. Plus you may want some extra fuel for a go around but any more than that would probably need to be burned or dumped ( depending on the aircraft type) prior to landing anyway. Like I said, less fuel = less fire. Here is one of many examples of an aircraft burning off as much fuel as possible when the gear may be up or in an unsafe condition:
Feb 2008 American Flight 862: Gear would not retract after the plane took off from Palm Beach International Airport in Florida. The MD-80 with 138 people on board landed safely in Miami AFTER SPENDING TWO HOURS IN THE AIR BURNING OFF FUEL.
Here are a couple more reasons I would add gas to my airplane (just as reasonable as the pilot that was quoted):
What if the aircraft over burns or if I have a fuel leak and every airport between my departure and destination closes?
What if the weather at my destination goes below landing minimums along with every other airport in the area and en route?
What if Space Aliens took over Earth and I need to fly around looking for an Alien Free landing zone?
If we fueled for every “what if”, we would have to just top off all aircraft and fly them around with no passengers! Not a good Idea with oil approaching $115.00 a barrel.
April 18, 2008 at 2:31 am |
…just some more humor for ya! You said keep em coming, enjoy!
April 18, 2008 at 3:09 am |
More from the article:
Excerpt from pilots’ filings…
“As fuel is a good substitute for brains, I’ll just have to add an extra 1500 lbs, just so I won’t have to do some extra thinkin’”.
Now that’s more like it, at least this pilot is honest!
April 18, 2008 at 9:40 am |
Please let me put this in layman’s terms as one representing the viewing public. As a veteran news audience member I’ve been trained to hear bits of a story — this being necessary to leave ample time for sports and truck commercials. From this story I pick up, pardon the pun, the following: Rising jet fuel cost/airlines forced to save money/possible danger/Avianca crash/dispatchers challenge captain/captain has final say/truck month/zero percent interest/and now for sports. For these reasons I research the internet for details on stories I find interesting. By the way, I work for an airline which seems more concerned with maximizing customer wait time while minimizing its veteran frontline workforce until injuries and attrition replace it with amusement park summer interns. How’s that for bubble bursting yummy flavored news?
April 18, 2008 at 12:37 pm |
I must admit, I love all the comments even the ones slamming me as the evil, no good, yellow bellied newsman. I deserve a smack down every now and then. Who doesn’t? I really like the one about flying around looking for an alien free zone, remember we live in Texas, I assume your talking about space aliens, but one never knows.
To Ray Munudo, no commericials on Grant’s Rant!!!! Don’t forget that!
April 18, 2008 at 7:21 pm |
“Under FAA regulations, pilots have the final say on how much fuel they take on board, but they say that when they question the fuel levels suggested in their flight plans, their judgment is frequently challenged.”
Exactly which FAA regulation is it that supports that contention?
Since you won’t give OPNLGuy a response, how about another licensed FAA Dispatcher asking you for the regulation? Still waiting Grant…
April 18, 2008 at 8:52 pm |
To A340 Spotter,
I was told by the FAA public information officer that the pilot always has the last say. Are you telling me he lied to me? The pilot doesn’t have the last say? Even the dispatchers and pilots I spoke to all agreed the pilot has the last say. I am not sure where you are going with this. What is your point? The dispatcher has the last say?
April 19, 2008 at 7:55 pm |
I am an airline pilot and the author of Salon.com’s ASK THE PILOT air travel series.
I found the MSNBC story to be sensationalist and wildly misleading. Grant, you did a great job at stilting the facts and scaring the crap out of people for absolutely no reason.
- Patrick Smith
June 19, 2008 at 9:31 pm |
I am an FAA Part 121 Licensed dispatcher and it is my job to make sure that the aircraft, among other things, has a safe
and appropriate amount of fuel on board. There are several ways we need to look at this.
Already many smaller cities have had their routes taken from them inevitably this will effect business and ultimately jobs
in the smaller communities the airlines used to serve.
We must conserve our resources as they become more precious in an attempt to save and maintain as much as is possible for
the consumers by way of travel. In the past years already the airlines have taken a beating. It is time for the airports and
planners to give reasonable timely information as to eliminate excessive air born holding and transmit realistic information
BEFORE the flight leaves the ground thus eliminating the costly and annoying airborne holding that can be reasonably
predicted in many cases. I have seen a much better attempt at stream lining flights to get them in to airports all over the
US during the past year.
We learned to eat healthier and give up the 2000 calorie hamburger, well its time to enjoy our air travel with the same
conservation and not just slop fuel on board guessing how much airborne holding may occur when all that really happens is the
extra weight from the extra fuel make the aircraft burn even more fuel costing everyone more.
We are in a dramatic time in history, if we do not find a compromise to make air travel affordable and at least marginally
profitable, we may find our glorious travel days extremely crippled along with a large industry of unemployed and the
revolving effects of this, so we need to work together as a community and as a country to keep as much air travel as we can
and work through this together until the solutions are found.
I can assure you that no pilot and no dispatcher will ever intentionally compromise the consumer or their own safety in a
quest to conserve fuel.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion and answers some questions.
Thanks for listening.
Janet Scornes