US Airways pilots complaints on fuel?
07-20-2008, 12:56 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 69
US Airways pilots complaints on fuel?
US Airways Counters Pilot Safety Charges | AVIATION WEEK
According to FARs (121 Operations specific), Aircraft must carry enough fuel to reach its destination, the furthest alternate and 45 minutes of reserve at normal cruising speed. So what are these pilots complaining about? The fuels requirements make the flight legal. There are no other requirements such as MAP, manuevering fuel, holding fuel etc. that is required to be given. My question is, are these pilots too spoiled on having been given extra fuel, or do they have a legitimate complaint that management has forced forced dispatch to break FARs to cut costs? Are there any relevant issues going on at anybody else's ops? Do tell!
According to FARs (121 Operations specific), Aircraft must carry enough fuel to reach its destination, the furthest alternate and 45 minutes of reserve at normal cruising speed. So what are these pilots complaining about? The fuels requirements make the flight legal. There are no other requirements such as MAP, manuevering fuel, holding fuel etc. that is required to be given. My question is, are these pilots too spoiled on having been given extra fuel, or do they have a legitimate complaint that management has forced forced dispatch to break FARs to cut costs? Are there any relevant issues going on at anybody else's ops? Do tell!
07-20-2008, 01:16 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CL-65 captain
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by tprangner
US Airways Counters Pilot Safety Charges | AVIATION WEEK
According to FARs (121 Operations specific), Aircraft must carry enough fuel to reach its destination, the furthest alternate and 45 minutes of reserve at normal cruising speed. So what are these pilots complaining about? The fuels requirements make the flight legal. There are no other requirements such as MAP, manuevering fuel, holding fuel etc. that is required to be given.
According to FARs (121 Operations specific), Aircraft must carry enough fuel to reach its destination, the furthest alternate and 45 minutes of reserve at normal cruising speed. So what are these pilots complaining about? The fuels requirements make the flight legal. There are no other requirements such as MAP, manuevering fuel, holding fuel etc. that is required to be given.
Uhhh 16 hour duty days, 8 hours reduced "rest," flying through a level 6 thunderstorm and Lots of other things in aviation are "legal." Does that make them safe in all situations?
07-20-2008, 01:18 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B-737 FO
Posts: 112
The FAR fuels are the requirement. I would venture to guess that US Airways is following those rules.
That being said, we all know from experience that things can crop up: Weather, ATC congestion on the ground, ATC congestion in the air, etc.. The Captain should be able to take all available information at hand, look at the dispatch release, and say, "You know, BASED ON EXPERIENCE, I want a little extra gas in case we're vectored or required to hold." That Captain is there because he's been deemed by the airline to have the experience and judgement to make the right call. The airlines need to back up there Captains instead of making them feel like "Who's flying this damn thing anyway!?!?!?"
Patch
That being said, we all know from experience that things can crop up: Weather, ATC congestion on the ground, ATC congestion in the air, etc.. The Captain should be able to take all available information at hand, look at the dispatch release, and say, "You know, BASED ON EXPERIENCE, I want a little extra gas in case we're vectored or required to hold." That Captain is there because he's been deemed by the airline to have the experience and judgement to make the right call. The airlines need to back up there Captains instead of making them feel like "Who's flying this damn thing anyway!?!?!?"
Patch
07-20-2008, 01:22 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: BE50C (A), BE95 (A), C172S (B)
Posts: 349
Originally Posted by mooney
Uhhh 16 hour duty days, 8 hours reduced "rest," flying through a level 6 thunderstorm and Lots of other things in aviation are "legal." Does that make them safe in all situations?
Not all things are expedient.
07-20-2008, 01:26 PM
#6
Furloughed Again?!
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Boeing 737
Posts: 4,796
It's the principal of the matter. The Captain's ability to ask for more fuel if he/she deems necessary is one of the last remaining vestiges of PIC authority.
Now the company is telling them how much they can take?
Some things are sacred. PIC authority in the airplane must be one of them.
Now the company is telling them how much they can take?
Some things are sacred. PIC authority in the airplane must be one of them.
07-20-2008, 01:27 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CL-65 captain
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by tprangner
US Airways Counters Pilot Safety Charges | AVIATION WEEK
According to FARs (121 Operations specific), There are no other requirements such as MAP, manuevering fuel, holding fuel etc. that is required to be given.
According to FARs (121 Operations specific), There are no other requirements such as MAP, manuevering fuel, holding fuel etc. that is required to be given.
No but if I take off with min "legal" fuel, Knowing based on my experience that I'm going to hold going into ATL when it is 500 1/2, or crossing the atlantic and I think headwinds are going to increase, and end up in a field somewhere due to lack of gas, who's hand is gonna get slapped? Dispatch and the airline for only giving me min legal fuel, or me as PIC for operating "careless and reckless" and not being the "final authority as to" the operation of the aircraft? 99/100 times it will be me that gets the scolding...
07-20-2008, 02:51 PM
#9
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
You have to remember these flights are operating into one of THE most difficult airports on the east coast to operate in and out of. Although now retired, I operated out of there for quite some time and it was not uncommon to hold on VFR days, to spend :60-90 just getting to the active for takeoff.
Based on my experience and knowing how everyone wants to find the magic formula of just enough fuel but not too much, I would say that each flight would likely require a different fuel load unless you are planning on landing at BGR or BOS because you can't get into PHL. <G>
Based on my experience and knowing how everyone wants to find the magic formula of just enough fuel but not too much, I would say that each flight would likely require a different fuel load unless you are planning on landing at BGR or BOS because you can't get into PHL. <G>
07-20-2008, 04:16 PM
#10
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 69
Dont' mean to play devil's advocate, but if the flights are going into a congested airport such JFK, ATL etc. and the PIC's know with their current fuel status, will not allow them to hold, just declare an emergency. If everyone starts declaring emergencies for fuel, then maybe management might realize that gambling with fuel may not be the wisest decision. Or is writing the reports to the FAA to much work?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Frisky Pilot
Regional
20
01-01-2022 05:02 PM
