Jump to content

minimum feul SouthWest airlines


Recommended Posts

I departed North Las Vegas today with a thunder storm in the West.  My heading was NE to Cedar City UT.  I was on flight following with LA center just out of Las Vegas airspace and listening to the controllers conversation with other aircraft.  LA center instructed a SW airliner to hold a fix because LAS wasn't allowing any landing because of gusting winds.  The SW pilot informed the controller of minimal fuel.  It seem like 5 minutes and the SW pilot asked for vectors to Phoenix due to minimal fuel.  Vectors were given then a couple of minutes later  the controller told the SW pilot that LAS was good for arrival.  The SW pilot declined saying he has minimal fuel and going to Phoenix.  I'm not sure how close the SW plane was to LAS but I keep thinking the SW flight must of been a lot closer to Vegas Vs. Phoenix.  I was feeling bad for the passengers and wondering what their delay was going to be.  I'm a VFR who uses fight following quite often.  I just wanted to say this is the most interesting experience I've had on flight following.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the pilot thought the thunderstorm would be an issue from the west and they would maybe have to put him in a hold again. The prevailing winds come from the west over there which would put the storm right in his path. If he would land in IMC without 45 minutes of fuel reserve he would be in violation, but if he went to PHX and was sure it was VFR it's the safer bet and "only" needs 30 minute of reserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each airline company will have its own fuel requirements in addition to the FARs.  I do not know what SWA requires, however, if PHX was the planned and in this case probably company directed alternate and while in holding the pilot found himself at divert fuel he was probably obligated to divert.  Just think what would have happened if he began the approach into LAX without sufficient fuel to divert and something (weather, ATC, incident on the ground) required a missed approach. In that case there would not have been enough fuel to divert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus there’s that whole PIC authority thing.  A takeaway lesson for us for us is to use it the same as the airliner or anyone else.  You’re in charge of your own safe flight. Maybe @jetdriven can clue us in to the fuel and divert requirements for the 73X.  Sounds like good conservative decision making / SOP on the part of the SW captain and the airline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is likely that the flight’s next destination was Phoenix, so skipping Vegas would put the plane back on schedule. Besides, if that was the case than about half of the passengers were probably trying to get to Phoenix anyway.

On a normal flight the plane will start to descend into Phoenix not too far south of Vegas. If they were at cruising altitude, they would have to fly some circles to get down. (I know with the power at idle and the speed brakes out they come down like a brick) Going into Phoenix would be a normal decent.

Did you happen to get the flight number or it’s altitude?

Edited by N201MKTurbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had to divert several times.  Depending on several issues, Northwest/Delta used to give us anywhere from 20 to 120 minutes of extra fuel over and above what was required.  However, there were times when ATC would use up that fuel (ground delays, route changes, vectors, altitude restrictions..) followed by holding for various reasons (weather, traffic, runway changes, runway closures...) as we got close to the destination.  When I got down to zero extra fuel, unless ATC would let me continue to the destination with a realistic expectation of landing without further delays, I would divert.

Once I started a divert I would not turn back.  If I did so, and ATC lied to me (they would never do that would they?) I would be between a rock and a hard place.  Going to either airport would require using some of my reserve fuel.  I considered that fuel to be used in an emergency, not due to poor decision making.  I was not willing to risk running out of gas with 100+ people behind me.

I even had one time when my dispatcher let me know that I was not authorized to divert.  I let him know I'd call him after I landed at Rochester.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DustinNwind said:

 If he would land in IMC without 45 minutes of fuel reserve he would be in violation, but if he went to PHX and was sure it was VFR it's the safer bet and "only" needs 30 minute of reserve.

DUDE !!!!  Huh? so not true 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It is likely that the flight’s next destination was Phoenix, so skipping Vegas would put the plane back on schedule. Besides, if that was the case than about half of the passengers were probably trying to get to Phoenix anyway.

On a normal flight the plane will start to descend into Phoenix not too far south of Vegas. If they were at cruising altitude, they would have to fly some circles to get down. (I know with the power at idle and the speed brakes out they come down like a brick) Going into Phoenix would be a normal decent.

Did you happen to get the flight number or it’s altitude?

I didn't get the flight #.  As soon as he diverted he requested to climb to cruising altitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you heard was a bingo fuel call. It varies depending on where you're at.
We try to land at 5K lbs (usually more), minfuel is 4k and emergency fuel is 3K.
From the point where he was holding, to his track to touchdown to his alternate plus his reserve prompted the decision to bail to the alternate.
Bingo fuel is there for a reason. It's like V1 on takeoff. It takes the decision out of the hands of the pilot. Yes, the PIC always has discretion, but why would you go against a tried-and-true method that is safe?
Think of the alternate reality... He attempts the approach, something happens (windshear maybe) and ends up well below his fuel on a missed approach and now he's fuel critical at Phoenix with emergency fuel; rather than a comfortable 5K he's now down to 3K. It happens that fast. Each go around for us costs 1500 pounds of fuel. s*** gets real pretty fast when you arrive at a destination with 3K on the airplane!


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DustinNwind said:

I assume the pilot thought the thunderstorm would be an issue from the west and they would maybe have to put him in a hold again. The prevailing winds come from the west over there which would put the storm right in his path. If he would land in IMC without 45 minutes of fuel reserve he would be in violation, but if he went to PHX and was sure it was VFR it's the safer bet and "only" needs 30 minute of reserve.

If it’s illegal to use your reserve, are you saying that it’s only to be used to break the law?

Edited by Shadrach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that the legality vs illegality of fuel reserves is measured at take-off. I have not seen anything about it being illegal to eat into your reserves, unless it fell into the "reckless" catchall category. Don't get me wrong; if you go into your reserves, you are not doing something right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DustinNwind said:

I'm saying if it was negligence or poor planning - am I wrong?

This was neither of those things. 

If we look at § 91.151- Fuel requirements for flight in VFR it clearly states “No person may begin a flight”. So the fuel reg is directed at departure fuel level not arrival fuel level. 

If we look at 91.167 - Fuel requirements for flight in IFR it clearly states “No person may operate”. I read this as from the time you start operating under IFR which may or may not be the beginning of the flight. 

Bottom line (to my reading any way) is that the regs are focused on planning the flight not actual circumstances and fuel on board at destination. Lots of things can eat into margins during the flight. They can can stack up long before being put in a hold at the destination.

Edited by Shadrach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DustinNwind said:

Calm down Jim, I promise this board is not worth getting worked up over. Maybe not violation if there was a good reason - but if it was just poor planning and negligence would he not?

Like Don and Ross said above, adequate reserve fuel (45 minutes for IFR planning- which applies to all Part 121 operators) is a preflight function.  Landing with less than that due to unforeseen delays is completely legal- but it really increases your pucker factor.  And if it happens too often the FAA will get involved and will probably investigate the PIC and the airline to revise that airline's policies (that the FAA themselves approve.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

It is my understanding that the legality vs illegality of fuel reserves is measured at take-off. I have not seen anything about it being illegal to eat into your reserves, unless it fell into the "reckless" catchall category. Don't get me wrong; if you go into your reserves, you are not doing something right.

Correct excepting IFR flights that began as VFR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Correct excepting IFR flights that began as VFR.

I don't think I ever thought about that. Is there some rule about that covers switching to IFR while flying VFR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

I don't think I ever thought about that. Is there some rule about that covers switching to IFR while flying VFR?

Without looking, and assuming I could very easily be wrong, I would assume you would need to meet IFR requirements from the point at which you switched.  Sort of like being re-dispatched while airborne on the way to Asia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

I don't think I ever thought about that. Is there some rule about that covers switching to IFR while flying VFR?

I think it’s covered by the word operate in 91.167 - Fuel requirements for flight in IFR it clearly states “No person may operate”. This differentiates it from  91.151- which states “No person may begin”. As Bob says, regardless of when you began the flight, the start of IFR operations is the point at which IFR fuel reserves become necessary.

Edited by Shadrach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

I think it’s covered by the word operate in 91.167 - Fuel requirements for flight in IFR it clearly states “No person may operate”. This differentiates it from  91.151- which states “No person may begin”.

This seems to negate my theory that the rule applies at the beginning of the flight. I therefore assume that (if flying IFR), it is our responsibility to constantly reevaluate our fuel status, and if it ever drops below the legal amount, we would have to amend our flight plan to make our destination a closer airport. And also monitor the weather forecast. If the forecast drops below the "1-2-3" requirement, we would have to recalculate the "fly to the alternate", and again, amend our flight plan if necessary. 

You learn something every day. Thank goodness, I never plan anything even near that limit, so this is an academic exercise for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

This seems to negate my theory that the rule applies at the beginning of the flight. I therefore assume that (if flying IFR), it is our responsibility to constantly reevaluate our fuel status, and if it ever drops below the legal amount, we would have to amend our flight plan to make our destination a closer airport. And also monitor the weather forecast. If the forecast drops below the "1-2-3" requirement, we would have to recalculate the "fly to the alternate", and again, amend our flight plan if necessary. 

You learn something every day. Thank goodness, I never plan anything even near that limit, so this is an academic exercise for me.

I think you're over thinking it. It does apply at the beginning of VFR flight as is clearly stated in the reg.  I would say it applies at the beginning of an IFR flight as well when that flight begins as IFR.  If the flight begins as VFR and an IFR flight plan is filed and picked up in the air, that is the point at which you need to have proper reserves (as I read it).  Reserves after all are there to act as a cushion as circumstances change. If the requirement were as you suggest it would be akin to requiring every IFR flight to tanker 1hr of fuel at all times and forbid it's use unless there was an emergency declared.  I do not believe that is how it is written or intended to be interpreted.  

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vegas in the summer is a tricky one. There can be thunderstorms. There is often windshear. If something causes multiple arrivals to go around or hold, they all are up there burning fuel and need to get in....

It is often a fool's errand to go into LAS in the summer without a bunch of extra fuel, assuming you aren't going in first thing in the morning when things are calm. That is because the divert airports for an airliner are all somewhat far away.. PSP, LAX, ONT, PHX. If you have planned one of those as an alternate and want that option, the go/no-go fuel to divert cannot dip below that plus IFR reserve. IF he went below that, deciding on another approach to Vegas an it did not work out, guess what option is left? Nellis, and then you're on the news.

A320 driver that goes into LAS from time to time...

 

Edit to also add, for our planning purposes in our own adventures: The whole alternate 1-2-3 thing. You can head to Vegas and be very sad without a good alternate, but the weather and reports and forecasts do not require an alternate at all..... after all, you won't find low ceiling/viz in Vegas very often. Just more food for thought, no matter whether you're flying a Mooney or an airliner.

 

Edited by Immelman
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Stuff happens. They’re always trying to lower the average landing fuel. People like to spout ‘it costs fuel to carry fuel’ & so on. I really do try to go with the plan, for the most part. The winds(usually forecast) can wreak as much havoc as CB activity.

  At times events conspire against you, that may include the fueler giving no extra, a long taxi, modest reroute, this is before any airport issues.

  You do what you gotta do. In most cases once you decide to divert, it’s better to stick with the plan. Of course there are exemptions for every rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.