 |
Apparently some pilots don’t think the airlines are carrying enough extra jet fuel, and according to a report in USA Today, that’s raising concern among pilots. We know why airlines have been reducing the amount of spare fuel they carry; the less “weight” planes carry, the less jet fuel they’ll burn, and in these days of crazy fuel prices, that’s a necessity. The question is, are they going too far? On Friday, I spoke with James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service with the FAA, about this story. Now, you should know that, according to USA Today, some pilots (who complained anonymously) said the reductions have meant delays and diversions. But Ballough has a different take. Keep reading. |
First of all, according to the FAA, airlines are required to carry excess fuel - enough to reach their destination; enough to fly to an alternate airport (in case of weather or another emergency); and enough to fly for another 45 minutes after reaching an alternate airport. The airlines say they comply with that, and that this is a very safe standard.
But about 20 pilots have filed complaints in the past year to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (which keeps their identities secret); again, according to the article, one airline pilot complained that “not enough fuel was put on the aircraft to handle a simple delay,” and that his Miami-bound flight, already delayed due to weather, was further delayed when he had to refuel in Fort Lauderdale.
I must say, I’m not crazy about anonymous sources, plus, the article mentions a report from the Dept. of Transportation that found “no evidence that any planes landed with unsafe levels of fuel” and we have to remember we are talking about, really, a handful of pilot complaints.
I asked the FAA’s James Ballough about this, and he too said, we are talking about a VERY small number of pilots. He believes that planes do have more than enough fuel.
Still, I suppose this is something to be alert to — and I’ll let you know when and if more information is forthcoming.
Rick, actually the airlines have historically exceeded the FAA standard for fuel loads on jets. For the carriers that fly into very busy hub airports, the FAA standard is a little too bare bones. The FAA established this standard many decades ago before the age of congested air traffic. But there have been recent airline policies that have reduced the fuels toward the FAA minimum in busy areas and those are the pilots you are hearing from. Just remember, the 45 minute reserve takes you down to zero! No pilot in his right mind is going to purposely plan to dip into that reserve. With thirty minutes flying time remaining, that consitiutes an emergency fuel state allowing the pilot to declare such and demanding exclusive handling by the traffic controllers to get the airplane to the airport without any delay. Now it doesn’t seem like as much fuel does it.
Comment by Steve Filson — May 16, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
I updated this story after I chatted with the person in charge at FAA (James Ballough) — he basically told me the USA Today story was a “non-story”.
Comment by Rick Seaney — May 17, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Actually, I have a related personal story about this, but it happened before the huge oil price spikes.
Was flying from Allentown, PA back to Chicago on a UA Express flight, think it was a CRJ-200. We boarded an hour late due to (surprise!) the ground delay program that was in effect at O’hare. You’d think this would signal to the airline/ground crew that maybe they should add a little extra fuel - in case their was congestion trying to land.
So we take off and its uneventful, until we get over Chicago airspace. The pilot announces that we have to circle while we wait for approval to land, will probably be another 15 - 20 minutes or so. Literally, a minute or two later, he comes back and says we have to divert to Ft. Wayne, IN (I presume our alternate) to refuel. So we fly another half hour to 40 minutes out of our way, spend 45 on the ground, and another 30 - 40 minutes back.
Eventually, we arrived over 3 hours late, 2/3 of which was caused by someone on the ground not thinking realistically. There are enough delays without having completely avoidable ones such as this. Think about it, if they would’ve put an extra, what, $50 worth of fuel on the flight, they would’ve saved themselves, hundreds, if not thousands, in extra landing fees, fuel at Ft. Wayne, extra pay to the crew, and travel vouchers for people like me.
Comment by Elliot Campbell — May 18, 2008 @ 12:42 am
Another little known item is there are airlines flying planes transcontinentally that were never intended as such. Both Jet Blue and Virgin American use the Airbus 320 which at full tanks, sometimes cannot reach the west coast from the east in the winter time without stopping in either Salt Lake City or Las Vegas for fuel. It’s because the jet streams blow much harder as a headwind in the winter and the Airbus was not designed for that kind of distance in those conditions. It’s happened more than once and something passengers need to be aware of when they’re being sold a “non-stop” ticket in the winter.
Comment by Steve Filson — May 19, 2008 @ 1:29 pm