Three Ryanair "emergency" landings in Valencia on same day

[Passenger]

The Aviation Herald has an update:

http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355/0000&opt=0

I can't really make out what the update is about?

That initial report on AvHerald.com about those fuel emergencies has been created on 22nd August 2012. There have been a few updates since then. And today, Simon has published another update: "last updated Thursday, Sep 20th 2012 10:54Z".

Because correct and official facts are very important for the discussion here, I thought today's update (by The AvHerald) was important enough to post that update on luchtzak.be.

Content of the update: "The Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) released their result of their investigation into the fuel emergencies concluding:..."

I'm not going to quote the findings of the IAA. They are on AvHerald.com:
http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355/0000&opt=0

[airazurxtror]

The EU decision to close the backdoor to the most extravagant of tax-evasive practices both ryanair and its pilots have been using for too long (i.e. pretending pilots to be self-employed and having them set up a bunch of 1-man limited companies based in Luxembourg solely for this purpose), indeed may have some unwanted distracting side effects...

I have already suggested that when Brussels Airlines was thinking of delocalizing its pilots in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Many doctors (physicians) set up an SPRL even in Belgium, in order to reduce their income tax - I don't know how it works, but it works !
If the doctors may do that, why not the pilots ?

[tolipanebas]

If the doctors may do that, why not the pilots ?

Ask the EU, or Ryanair: clearly the rules have changed and pilots can no longer select the fiscally most attractive country to base their one man limited, but are now limited as to where they can base their company (in most cases this means Ireland, which is far less attractive than Luxembourg, leading to significant income losses compared to before for many Ryanair pilots).

Besides, the fact of working through a one man limited itself is under increasing pressure from numerous sides, especially when it concerns not independantly working people like doctors or lawyers, but rather de facto employed people like pilots.

A loosely related news article about why this kind of tax evasion is being increasingly targeted from only today: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/econo ... Umigranten

[Passenger]

The EU decision to close the backdoor to the most extravagant of tax-evasive practices both ryanair and its pilots have been using for too long (i.e. pretending pilots to be self-employed and having them set up a bunch of 1-man limited companies based in Luxembourg solely for this purpose), indeed may have some unwanted distracting side effects...

I have already suggested that when Brussels Airlines was thinking of delocalizing its pilots in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. Many doctors (physicians) set up an SPRL even in Belgium, in order to reduce their income tax - I don't know how it works, but it works ! If the doctors may do that, why not the pilots ?

Labour related obligations are proof of an employer-employee relationship, specially when there are recurring cycles like rosters. If employed pilots set up a sprl/bvba, they are schijnzelfstandigen / faux indépendants (false self-employed) according to Belgian law. Doctors don't have that problem, as they don't have a contract with ... their own company.

They may do so, but then without mutual obligations. The statutary aim of their bvba/sprl then has to remain very general, like "to render services regarding all aspects of aviation...". When the name of the pilot is mentionned in the contract with the airline, it wil be seen as proof of false self-employed.

(Still waiting for replies on the update by Aviation Herald on Ryanair's fuel policy - see above)

[OO-ITR]

(Still waiting for replies on the update by Aviation Herald on Ryanair's fuel policy - see above)

To quote someone else in another topic : "And then...it was silent. Brilliant"

[sean1982]

ITR, I've never seen anything usefull posted by you, so in your case that's best STill waiting on your answer to my post btw? So wipe the smirk of your face

"Operational considerations may dictate the carriage of fuel in excess of flight plan fuel, even when not tankering. This is a matter for the exercise of the Captain's discretion. The Commander may carry up to 300kg more than FPL/Block fuel without explanation, actual plog fuel +300 kg, rounded up to the nearest 10 kg. Where departure fuel is more than 300 kg in excess of flight plan fuel an explanation for the uplift shall be recorded on the Voyage Report".

This reads as: the captain has the final decision about how much fuel must be taken, ergo their is no problem.

On initial contact with Valencia the air traffic controller appeared overloaded and did not respond to numerous calls. Subsequently the aircraft was kept high on the approach profile by ATC vectors and was cleared to a holding fix at which point the captain declared emergency and was cleared for an immediate approach. The aircraft was still too high however and further vectors were needed

Spanish ATC screwed up, no surprises there

While on Madrid Approach frequency the crew did not receive detailed weather information despite request

See my comment above

A LAN Airlines Airbus A340-300, registration CC-CQF performing flight LA-705 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Madrid,SP (Spain), estimated flight time 3:10 hours, was on final approach to Madrid's runway 18L when the crew went around from about 4000 feet MSL at 20:02Z. The aircraft climbed to FL120 and followed delay vectors until 20:22Z (20 minutes) when the crew decided to divert to Valencia. Still on a westerly heading in opposite direction to Valencia the aircraft climbed to FL280 before turning east to Valencia. On descent towards Valencia the crew declared Mayday reporting being low on fuel. The aircraft reached Valencia descending through FL100 at 21:09Z and subsequently lost an engine. The aircraft landed in Valencia at 21:16Z 74 minutes after going around in Madrid with 1300kg/2860lbs of fuel in the left wing tank and 800kg/1760lbs of fuel in the right wing tank remaining substantially below the required minimum final fuel reserve of about 2800kg/6170lbs.

Still nobody talks about that

Met conditions were worse then anticipated when the MET forecast review, and fuel decisions were taken based upon this

In other words, crew could not judge the exact situation based upon the info that was presented to them.

Off course this would not never happen to our god's gift to aviation, his sixth sense and radar eyes given by his training department would prevent that from happening

[B.Inventive]

I'd love to see the actual TAF for LEMD when these crews briefed.
Have to say
FR2054 takes MIN REQ fuel + 600kg (+- 15' extra)
FR5998 takes MIN REQ fuel + 300kg (+- 7' extra)
FR5389 takes MIN REQ fuel + 800kg (+- 20' extra)

Going to madrid, at any time, requires a certain amount of diligence. As it is known to be an airfield with less than efficient ATC, very busy and congested airspace (even though it is less busy than f.e. FRA or LHR, considering the way it is controlled by radar "specialists", it is busy...)
So as a pilots, I for one would never ever dream of going to Madrid on minimum fuel. This is simply a 'no no' in our book. This is not to say going there on minimum fuel is dangerous, just... well let's say dupable.
Then, considering the weather was predicted in 'some' form (again, need to see the TAF to judge how bad it was predicted to be...) I would try to assess a reasonable amount of additional fuel.

Personally, FR5998 took too little, FR2054 took just enough for 'no weather expected' conditions and FR5389 may have just been on the short end of what is a 'normal' fuel extra for MAD. This is of course in my judgement.

Does anybody have an actual list of all flights which had gone in emergency due to the wx at MAD that day?
the info I have is 3 RYR, 1 EZY and the LAN chile.
to me it seems as if other airlines might have been tempted to fuel up a bit more concerning the operational and weather forecast at MAD that day, a choice which the RYR and EZY guys may have made differently considering the way RYR/EZY frowns upon taking that extra precautionary 'cushion' of fuel.
Again, to repeat, I don't believe they operated those flights 'dangerously', just a little dupable with regards to their very underestimated expectations of MAD ...

[Boeing767copilot]

Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

[tolipanebas]

FR5998 takes MIN REQ fuel + 300kg (+- 7' extra)
FR2054 takes MIN REQ fuel + 600kg (+- 15' extra)
FR5389 takes MIN REQ fuel + 800kg (+- 20' extra)

To translate those values into something meaningful and easy to understand for non-pilots:
FR5998 might as well have taken nothing at all! Crew wanted to remain below 'plog+300', I guess?
FR2054 has just sufficient fuel to cover routine vectoring with Southerly runway configurations at MAD.
FR5389 has the ability to fly about 1 single holding pattern on top of the expected lenghty vectoring...

Those are basically all ZERO uplifts, when taking into account the bigger picture at MAD.
Seems to me like FR is in a state of denial when it comes to recognising MAD isn't just some desolated or decommisioned military airport they normally serve.

Also interesting to note not only the too low quantities here, but also the huge relative spread.
Clearly some guidance from above is urgently needed to help the decision making process of the FR crews.
Let's say that a fuel uplift between 1000kg (best case) and 2000kg (realistic case) would have been very appropriate that day. Anybody dares to take bets as to what you'd find on the plogs of let's say the IB, LH, BA or SN flights to MAD that day?

Personally, FR5998 took too little, FR2054 took just enough for 'no weather expected' conditions and FR5389 may have just been on the short end of what is a 'normal' fuel extra for MAD. This is of course in my judgement.

I agree with you 100%.
MOL however states all flights carried extra fuel.
Yep, they did so indeed ... and it conveniently fitted all into a single yerry can almost!

[Bracebrace]

Those are basically all ZERO uplifts, when taking into account the bigger picture at MAD.

Taking into account the FULL bigger picture you also need flight plans details, to be exact: mentioned routings like SID's, STAR's, inflight. Not to mention the 5% contingency you hardly ever use over Europe because the amount of good "directs" that are thrown at you. I once did a DUB flight out of Belgium with in total 3(!) turns. Departure, right turnout up to FL240, left turn to 10 mile final DUB, left turn on the localizer, land. Now yes, that was at night... and that was a departure out of Belgium. Arrivals in Belgium... hmmm... not very much better than in Spain. We have a fuel guzzling demanding ATC in our own country. Do you take that into account in your fuel calculations when flying back to your home country? Sorry if there are ATC guys on this forum, but that's my experience

[OO-ITR]

ITR, I've never seen anything usefull posted by you, so in your case that's best STill waiting on your answer to my post btw? So wipe the smirk of your face

Ironic mood ON
Luckily there is only one member putting useful links here
Ironic mood OFF

[tolipanebas]

Those are basically all ZERO uplifts, when taking into account the bigger picture at MAD.

Taking into account the FULL bigger picture you also need flight plans details, to be exact: mentioned routings like SID's, STAR's, inflight. Not to mention the 5% contingency you hardly ever use over Europe because the amount of good "directs" that are thrown at you.

Contingency fuel is not to be relied up in planning stage, nor are any (likely) in flight shortcuts...
The first is there to cover unexpected situations like e.g stronger than planned headwinds, whereas the second is just a bonus that adds to any other extra's you may have planned (or not) to take with you for your flight.

But indeed, it's an interesting remark you make here: provided those crews will have been asking for directs on the ATC frequencies while inboad to MAD in the best of FR's style, they will likely have arrived at the holding fix of MAD with a fair amount of unplanned extra fuel remaining, so some of the fuel they had at their disposal during this odyssey and which they ultimately also desperately needed to rely on to make it back to the ground with safely, came not from a thourough preflight planning or from sound pilot's judgement of the situation confronted with, but rather from efficient coordination by ATC earlier on.

Makes it all even more worrying really, especially in the light of the public bashing of ATC by the airline that thinks it can do no wrong whatsoever.

[Passenger]

There is another update on Aviation Herald:

http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355/0013&opt=0

[sean1982]

ITR, I've never seen anything usefull posted by you, so in your case that's best STill waiting on your answer to my post btw? So wipe the smirk of your face

Ironic mood ON
Luckily there is only one member putting useful links here
Ironic mood OFF

Another constructive and usefull post. Bravo!! On to the next one

Makes it all even more worrying really, especially in the light of the public bashing of ATC by the airline that thinks it can do no wrong whatsoever.

I think you confused the word "airline" with "myself"

There is another update on Aviation Herald:

http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355/0013&opt=0

So the LAN did loose an engine due to it's fuel status ... still there are 7 pages about FR who landed without any problems. No bias though

[Inquirer]

There is another update on Aviation Herald:

http://avherald.com/h?article=454af355/0013&opt=0

It seems something got mixed up in the text of the link you refer to, because I have a very hard time reading that English correctly, but do I get it right that the Spanish authorities will use the conclusions from yet another ryanair fuel emergency in Spain from some time ago as conclusions to the events of the 26th of July due to their similarity and in order to speed up the pace of procedings?

If indeed they dealt with another ryanair fuel emergency some time ago and then they suddenly get no less than 3 identical events from the same airline added to their 'to do' list all in a single day, I can somewhat understand their recent anger.

I know I wouldn't be very pleased either going back to a plant of ours only to find out they haven't put any of the recommendations made during a previous visit into practice, but have been just continuing as before.

[earthman]

Well if Ryanair cannot be bothered to take enough fuel voluntarily, perhaps they should just require all airlines to take sufficient extra fuel on board when flying to MAD. The previous Ryanair fuel incident was over 2 years ago (may 2010, plane diverted from Alicante to Valencia, landed with 910kg fuel remaining), and they figured they'd have the same recommendations for the new incidents as for the old one, so they threw it all in one file.

Also this totally puts into question Sean's earlier remark that recommendations are put into practice automatically.

[sean1982]

They are, can you point me to recommendation of the 2010 report? or to the report??
Are you accusing me of being a liar earthman?

[Atco EBBR]

... We have a fuel guzzling demanding ATC in our own country. Do you take that into account in your fuel calculations when flying back to your home country? Sorry if there are ATC guys on this forum, but that's my experience

No apologies required, I work in the tower What are you referring to in fact: too many miles or having to descend too early? In our defence, Belgian airspace is amongst the most complex in Europe (second in complexity only to London), being jammed in between 4 big airports (Paris, London, Amsterdam en Frankfurt) and several more medium sized ones.

[Jetbob]

Sean I think it is nice when you are defending your employer.

MOL has a reputation, when you sleep with dogs you'll wake up with fleas !.

Maybe you try to walk in his footsteps, but in general your attitude sucks.
In this and many other discussions !.

I think it is a shame when you work in a customer focused industry.

I think it is a shame for the discussion

[sean1982]

my attitude sucks? Why because I refuse to give in to the Brussels Airlines clan? It's called freedom of speech Sir.

I also think that somebody with 3 posts says to somebody else "you suck" is not very polite