Strawberry7 wrote:

he Captain cannot carry as much fuel as he wishes - he would be challenged if he did that. The fuel plan is worked out for each flight, and part of the Captain's job is working out how much fuel is required for each journey, taking into account the prospect of being diverted or busy traffic and going into hold. They usually allow 45 minutes for hold and divert - and must land with at least one hour's flying time of fuel in the tanks: that is why I explained yesterday that a pilot would never give out a MAYDAY if he was running out of fuel - because it just doesn't happen. It also depends on the length of the runway when taking off - if he has too much fuel and the weight is heavy he cannot take off if the runway isn't long enough. And if the aircraft is too heavy he can't turn back and land in an emergency. If for any reason (which would be highly unusual)

Just to put this to bed. The captain decides how much fuel he will take for a flight; any excess on the computer generated plan has to be justified on the paperwork. 30 minutes holding is the norm for planning. Performance tables are provided for every airfield and every runway that an operator flies into which give the maximum take of weight dependant upon wind, altitude and temperature which, in turn, will determine the maximum quantity of fuel that can be carried. The other limitation on the quantity of fuel that can be carried is the maximum landing weight of the aircraft (over 40,000kgs difference on the A330). Throw into the equation the fuel required at the so called "equal time point(s)" on a two engine long haul operation and you come up with a fuel figure. Then there are weather considerations, will you make the planned cruise level and several other factors that will be considered before arriving at a final fuel figure. You do not want to carry any more than you have to as it costs fuel to carry fuel.

You can land an aircraft above the maximum landing weight; it is no big deal. It does not even make the emergency check list; it is just considered an"abnormal". An overweight landing check would have to be carried out by engineering before the aircraft is released back into service. Most long haul aircraft have the facility to jettison fuel if there is time available.

All aircraft glide; gliding distance about three time the altitude divided by 1,000 so at 30,000ft an aircraft will glide about 90 miles. You can successfully glide to land at an airfied; the Air Transat A330 did a good job of this when landing in the Azores, a German Hapag Lloyd Airbus A310 was not so successful when they ran out of fuel near Vienna and there were many injuries. It does happen.

Suggest you read my profile!

jacky wrote:

Whatever your opinion you cannot just dismiss the Mail journalist.

To be fair Jacky, the newspapers are simply trying to sell a story with sensationalised headlines and counter-arguments. Having worked with the media for a number of years, they can quote as many experts and show as many grapths as they wish, and I'd still take it with a pinch of salt and want to see the raw data for myself! I once talked to a journalist about something, nothing to do with a news release just to gain permission for access somewhere as this particular person was our contact and the day after, it was all over the local media that I'd requested access to carry out something that had nothing to do with the reason I was there. While I can see the point in the story, there are a number of flaws in the argument and given there are some real incidents from the ash with deposits and aircraft diversions, not to mention my car being covered in the stuff last week, I wouldn't read too much in to the article. The person who wrote the article is a journalist with a motive, not a volcanologist, meteorologist or aircraft engineer. I suspect they've been rather selective with some of those quotes too.

Darren

Dazbo HT Mod wrote:

jacky wrote:

Whatever your opinion you cannot just dismiss the Mail journalist.

I wouldn't read too much in to the article. The person who wrote the article is a journalist with a motive, not a volcanologist, meteorologist or aircraft engineer. I suspect they've been rather selective with some of those quotes too.

Darren

I know all about the media but sometimes they serve a purpose. They are not experts but neither are the people running the show are they! most of the aircraft engineers have come out to say it was all tosh...except for the ones on various forums who we are never sure are "experts" or have just been googling and on Wiki

Hi Busdriver,

busdriver wrote:

Just to put this to bed. The captain decides how much fuel he will take for a flight; any excess on the computer generated plan has to be justified on the paperwork. 30 minutes holding is the norm for planning. Performance tables are provided for every airfield and every runway that an operator flies into which give the maximum take of weight dependant upon wind, altitude and temperature which, in turn, will determine the maximum quantity of fuel that can be carried. The other limitation on the quantity of fuel that can be carried is the maximum landing weight of the aircraft (over 40,000kgs difference on the A330). Throw into the equation the fuel required at the so called "equal time point(s)" on a two engine long haul operation and you come up with a fuel figure. Then there are weather considerations, will you make the planned cruise level and several other factors that will be considered before arriving at a final fuel figure. You do not want to carry any more than you have to as it costs fuel to carry fuel.

You can land an aircraft above the maximum landing weight; it is no big deal. It does not even make the emergency check list; it is just considered an"abnormal". An overweight landing check would have to be carried out by engineering before the aircraft is released back into service. Most long haul aircraft have the facility to jettison fuel if there is time available.

All aircraft glide; gliding distance about three time the altitude divided by 1,000 so at 30,000ft an aircraft will glide about 90 miles. You can successfully glide to land at an airfied; the Air Transat A330 did a good job of this when landing in the Azores, a German Hapag Lloyd Airbus A310 was not so successful when they ran out of fuel near Vienna and there were many injuries. It does happen.

Suggest you read my profile!

You've reiterated what I said to you: yes, the Captain does decide how much fuel to take, but he has to justify for how much fuel load he is carrying: thus why he cannot take extra just because he wants to. And in your previous post you said you would take extra if it was you. But as I pointed out to you - a Captain cannot just load as much fuel as he/she so desires simply because they're worried they've miscalculated. They must take the minimum amount according to safety regulations to keep fuel costs down. They do take an extra 30 minutes fuel for hold - but they also have to take an extra 15 minutes for divert: thus why they take a total of 45 minutes extra fuel.

You should not land an aircraft above the maximum landing weight: besides damaging the aircraft (maybe worse) you could destroy the runway itself. It isn't just the length of a runway which determines whether a certain aircraft can land or not - it's whether the runway's strong enough to take the weight. That is why aircraft will dump fuel before landing in an emergency. Most aircraft have to circle to burn it off as not all aircraft can jettison fuel.

I understand that all aircraft glide (theoretically) and books, instructors, and theory training will tell you that - but with no engine power it's highly unlikely you'd be able to glide an Airbus down safely from 30,000 ft. In THEORY you should be able to glide down, but all aviation experts know that's unlikely. There have been the very rare instances where aircraft which have suffered sudden major engine failure have been able to make a safe emergency landing (such as the American airline which landed on the Hudson river minutes after take off) but they are one in a million. A catastrophic engine failure usually results in the aircraft falling to the ground (maybe going into a spin) - the crew would find it nigh impossible on steering it towards an airfield (providing they were near one!) without power. That's possibly why the German Haplog Airbus you mention couldn't reach the runway - it had no power. I know occasionally a pilot can glide an unpowered jet down - but to bring it down safely they need tremendous luck besides skill. They can't just land anywhere! Even if there is an airfield in sight they often land short of the runway - and usually crash land. That's why when one does manage to glide safely down it's major headline news.

We obviously have different takes on the situation.

I'm sure with you being ex aviation (as you say in your profile) you'll understand what I'm trying to convey to you. Incidentally, whilst I don't for one moment doubt you - I am a little surprised at some of your statements - such as when you said 'your suitcase' had flown 4 million miles. Lucky suitcase, eh?! I think you're bragging there a little - 3 million NAUTICAL miles is not 3 million miles as most people know it! Cheeky! My ex-husband,and also my late-partner (both aviation) always talspoke in flying hours. I too am a qualifield pilot (albeit a lowly PPL) but my ex-husband is a serving BA Captain and was for the 15 years we were together. I'm not sure how many miles HIS suitcase has flown (though he usually takes one of those small wheely things - plus his flight case of course) but except for the loading and unloading onto the plane the case itself did little else - exxcept wheeling itself into hotel bedrooms!

Which airline did you fly for? You more than likely know my ex-husband. Aviation is such a small world isn't it?

Strawberry

My other half finally arrived home.............now I'm wishing he was stranded again!

greenshoes

It would only take one Aircraft to fall out of the sky and then there would be a blood hunt. I think they made decisions with the best information they had at the time. I would rather see caution and miss my holiday as I did than risk one single life being lost.
Lessons will be learned from this experience and rather than throw scorn on the authorities concerned we should allow them to do their job.
Thank you Darren for the voice of reason.

Sue

It would only take one Aircraft to fall out of the sky and then there would be a blood hunt. I think they made decisions with the best information they had at the time. I would rather see caution and miss my holiday as I did than risk one single life being lost.
Lessons will be learned from this experience and rather than throw scorn on the authorities concerned we should allow them to do their job.
Thank you Darren for the voice of reason.

Well said Sue.

Anyway folks if you take a look at yesterdays Mail you should find the article I (tried) to post which demonstrates that the whole fiasco was bunkum...who has lost the most....us holidaymakers

Ah, the DM such an educational Labour bashing, wannabee celebrity followers tabloid
Who has lost the most? I would image the airlines, the TO's, the hotels, the people in the tourist sector etc, all the people who depend on "us holidaymakers" plus those who use planes for business and importing produce into the UK.
So you lost your holiday,? is that the end of the world? isn't that better than losing your life and killing a few more innocent people on the ground who may never go on holiday?
Armchair critics who never have to make a decision other than "what shall we have for tea today" and wannabee journalists who day after day become experts in every subject under the sun, don't you just love them.!

I was reading this thread whilst stranded in Spain and there wasn't one person who thought it was "bunkum", there wasn't one person who wanted to jump on the first plane and test it out.

I'll tell you who lost out....it was those who could have been wanting an air ambulance home or those waiting for a plane to bring in a donor organ, those who wanted to take their children suffering with terminal cancer on their LAST holiday or take a plane to some specialist for life-saving treatment.....
So some of you think all this bunkum was deliberately engineered to make some companies go bankrupt, strand million of people abroad, ruining plans for holidays and may have allowed people to die because of not having a new heart flown across Europe.?

Someone tell me. Who in their right mind would want all this to happen or prolong it further than necessary.? And don't forget it was other European counties too, it wasn't just the UK that closed the air-space, so it would be interesting to find out if other European citizens think it was bunkum"¦.or is it just another British trait of whinging.?

So you lost your holiday? In the great scheme of things you have nothing to moan about, you can get your money back and go book another one, and learn a lesson that life is full of disappointments....and yes sometimes the old saying is true...it is better to be safe than sorry because there is no room for mistakes 35,000 feet up in the sky, there is no room for the question "will or won't the ash affect the engines" and I'd like to believe this is the reason why aeroplane disasters are (thank god) far and few these days.

I was peed off, I wanted to get home, but instead of thinking about just me,me, me, there were others who needed to be thought about, some who may now never have the chance to ever go on holiday again.

Sanji

well said sanji
angelica

Sanji. Great post. I could not have put that as well myself, never mind better.

sanji,great post. well said(or written!)

Eloquently put Sanji, I totally agree with you

Hi Sanji,

You and I have had our disagreements over the years but it's good to see that there are some things that we do agree on. It's not for nothing that air travel is one of the safest ways to go and I, like you, want to keep it that way and can't understand why anyone would want it any different!

SM

As I said it is not about the Daily Mail. They gave named credible quotes. You cannot cherry pick who you believe. All the experts now concede it was a mistake. Did you read the CV's of the people who are running the Met and the CAA....what a laugh.

Of course Airlines etc are the ones who will lose, and who do you think will pay for the costly fiasco

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

jacky wrote:

Did you read the CV's of the people who are running the Met and the CAA....what a laugh

You mean people like the exceptionally qualified and experienced Professor Julia Slingo OBE, (Chief Scientist, Met Office) and Professor John Mitchell OBE, (Director of Climate Science, Met Office)? They sound like they have the credentials to be in post to me. Bear in mind CEO's and board members in organisations aren't always there to advise and make decisions. They are there to run a business. It's usually the people below them and are accountable to them who are the main brains, they just make sure the business runs smoothly.

Darren

Yes and they have made decisions to spend very little on this type of research. Listening instead to scientists coming cap in hand for other scaremongering money as in the global warming con. Anyway I am out of here. Anyone who is interested in learning the truth should google and read both sides not get their information from a bunch of scared package holidaymakers who it seems know more than all the airline chiefs and other scientists who you choose to ignore!

jacky
You're hilarious. Too good for this forum obviously. Last post

ZZZZZzzzzzz.....

70,000 ash affected TUI travellers returned home

A total of 70,000 TUI UK holidaymakers stuck overseas due to the volcanic ash disruption were due to have been repatriated by last night (Wednesday).

The vast majority of Thomson and First Choice clients had already returned to the UK, leaving a "very small number" to travel back yesterday.

Around 235 repatriation flights were organised from the opening of UK airspace to bring people home together with the use of three cruise ships and fleets of coaches.

Package holiday and flight-only travellers overseas were accommodated in hotels with the cost covered by the operator.

More than 100,000 hotel rooms were provided at no extra charge. In the majority cases this accommodation was provided on an all-inclusive or half-board basis. Most package holidaymakers were able to remain in the accommodation they had originally chosen.

Thomson and First Choice began repatriated people by coach and three cruise ships.

Some travelled from southern Spain by coach to Northern France where they were put on a ferry back to the UK and coached from Dover to their original departure airport.

New Thomson Cruises' ship Thomson Dream was used to transfer those stranded on Majorca to Barcelona from where onward travel was arranged.

Island Cruises also transported a number of passengers on the Island Escape, who were unable to fly back to the UK after their cruise, plus 300 non-cruise Thomson and First Choice holidaymakers. They were collected in Funchal, Madeira en-route and the ship reached Falmouth last Friday, where coaches were waiting to transport customers back to their original UK departure airport.

Other Thomson and First Choice holidaymakers were taken via coach to Bilbao in Spain where they were put on new ship Celebrity Eclipse to be brought back to Southampton.

Communications director Christian Cull said: "The closure of UK airspace for six days was a completely unprecedented situation.

"Everyone at Thomson Airways, Thomson and First Choice rose to the challenge and their number one priority at all times was getting customers home safely.

"We are very proud of all the hard work that has happened across the business, to look after customers and repatriate them back to the UK so quickly.

"The response from our customers has been overwhelming and we would like to thank them for their support."

With permission from Travelmole