Allegiant Air Fuel Incident

Boris Badenov said:
And on a related note *hic*. If the ATIS gets any longer most "major" airports, we're not going to have to worry about single-pilot airliners. Back when I was flying single-pilot, it was bad enough. Now it's like listening to a freaking Sham-Wow! commercial. Oh, that's fascinating, Memphis. Thanks for letting me know in the most laborious *&#$#ing way that 9/27 is shorter than the other runways. I had no idea. Because I'm a retard and have nothing better to do than listen to your disembodied robotic voice warn me of I would already know about if I were, you know, a "pilot".
Click to expand...
I heard a new one the other day. This one was real voice. AFIS actually. "Blah blah... visibility 1/4 mile, fog, overcast 200. An ATC clearance is required before entering the class E surface area."
Because there's apparently too many people running around VFR at 1/4-200?
 
Derg said:
No link.

You're not getting it, not even my mods or even my wife who said "that's a great learning tool" across the couch when I found it.

Nope nope nope.
Click to expand...

No link? We'll just assume it's the worst one.
 
z987k said:
I heard a new one the other day. This one was real voice. AFIS actually. "Blah blah... visibility 1/4 mile, fog, overcast 200. An ATC clearance is required before entering the class E surface area."
Because there's apparently too many people running around VFR at 1/4-200?
Click to expand...
Or they don't want someone to taxi beyond a ILS critical area.
 
I am amazed that we are not discussing such poor fuel management. This is private pilot •. He had 20 minutes of fuel after what, holding for how long? He was already into his 45 minutes when he was 25 minutes out. I am almost 40, been doing this for about 15 years, 121/135/91K now 91. I believe the rules are go to airport, one approach, go miss, go to alternate if needed and then 45 minutes, some places are 60 per SOP. I had an issue once, going into a remote part of ND, that we had to stop for fuel because the alternate was to far to make it all work. Please tell me I have been doing it wrong this whole time. These guys need to have their ATPs pulled, period.
 
SFLAX said:
I am amazed that we are not discussing such poor fuel management. This is private pilot . He had 20 minutes of fuel after what, holding for how long? He was already into his 45 minutes when he was 25 minutes out. I am almost 40, been doing this for about 15 years, 121/135/91K now 91. I believe the rules are go to airport, one approach, go miss, go to alternate if needed and then 45 minutes, some places are 60 per SOP. I had an issue once, going into a remote part of ND, that we had to stop for fuel because the alternate was to far to make it all work. Please tell me I have been doing it wrong this whole time. These guys need to have their ATPs pulled, period.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you can dispatch with no contingency, no holding fuel and no alternate fuel with 45 minutes left in the tanks in 121 ops and still be legal. Add in some unforcasted winds and taking off AT min fuel and this is exactly what happens.

But I could be wrong about that, as I've never actually done it before.
 
jtrain609 said:
Pretty sure you can dispatch with no contingency, no holding fuel and no alternate fuel with 45 minutes left in the tanks in 121 ops and still be legal. Add in some unforcasted winds and taking off AT min fuel and this is exactly what happens.

But I could be wrong about that, as I've never actually done it before.
Click to expand...
tumblr_mamkyqacL61qkpeuro2_r1_250.gif
 
I think you are correct. But they were 45 minutes out with what appears to be 65 minutes of fuel. If my math is correct. So by the rules of 121, which I don't remeber, been over 15 years ago, need to divert to maintain that 45 upon arrival, plus approach?
 
Sorry, also need gas for one approach and missed.

Otherwise yeah, totally legal and also a terrible decision.
 
SFLAX said:
I think you are correct. But they were 45 minutes out with what appears to be 65 minutes of fuel. If my math is correct. So by the rules of 121, which I don't remeber, been over 15 years ago, need to divert to maintain that 45 upon arrival, plus approach?
Click to expand...

One would think so, but how do you calculate that? Use the box? With the arrival? A full approach? Straight in? Idle descent or being stepped down?

All those things muddy the waters, but yeah, they should have had an idea they were up a creek quite a ways out.
 
There's legal and there's prudent.

I had a time when the dispatcher actually told me on the recorded line "Yup, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's legal and we're going to save X amount of fuel".

"I'll be right here with the parking brake set until we have a legal and prudent fuel load with a more suitable alternate"
 
SFLAX said:
I think you are correct. But they were 45 minutes out with what appears to be 65 minutes of fuel. If my math is correct. So by the rules of 121, which I don't remeber, been over 15 years ago, need to divert to maintain that 45 upon arrival, plus approach?
Click to expand...
There's no required landing fuel. As others have said there's legal and there's smart. In the air fuel is fuel and if you land with 20 minutes you haven't broken any regs.

As long you depart with minto: O-D then furthest ALT plus 45 minutes at cruise.
 
I say bingo in the cockpit, but I would tell ATC "minimum fuel" and to me- it means I need to start towards the alternate or I'm now using my fuel reserve.
 
Luigi said:
There's no required landing fuel. As others have said there's legal and there's smart. In the air fuel is fuel and if you land with 20 minutes you haven't broken any regs.

As long you depart with minto: O-D then furthest ALT plus 45 minutes at cruise.
Click to expand...

While there is no set requirement for what to land with, it is pretty clear you can't casually burn into your 45 min reserve fuel. That fuel is meant as a last resort back up plan and not meant to be used a contingency fuel. Landing with 20 mins may not be illegal but what led to that happening is what could be illegal if that event was one that could be foreseen.

Pilots can blame dispatchers about fuel issues but how many times have pilots called me up when weight restricted and they want to be dispatched with bare minimum FAR fuel so they can get the jumpseater on?
 
Flagship_dxer said:
While there is no set requirement for what to land with, it is pretty clear you can't casually burn into your 45 min reserve fuel. That fuel is meant as a last resort back up plan and not meant to be used a contingency fuel. Landing with 20 mins may not be illegal but what led to that happening is what could be illegal if that event was one that could be foreseen.

Pilots can blame dispatchers about fuel issues but how many times have pilots called me up when weight restricted and they want to be dispatched with bare minimum FAR fuel so they can get the jumpseater on?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying plan to burn into reserve, that would be a clear FAR violation because at that point you would not have had enough fuel to meet MINTO. But....if you are enroute and you need it, use it. Don't necessarily divert because your going to land with 30 minutes. Same thing could be said for when wx drops enroute. If I need a sudden ALT, I can use that 45 minutes legally as alt burn to COS, STC, BFI, FNT, etc.
 
Luigi said:
If I need a sudden ALT, I can use that 45 minutes legally as alt burn to COS, STC, BFI, FNT, etc.
Click to expand...

Do you mean just using the fuel to get to an alternate or amending a release with an alternate using just the 45 min FAR fuel? One is legal under unplanned circumstances and the other is not under any circumstances.
 
BobDDuck said:
D-ATIS. Join the revolution.
Click to expand...

We still fly to a surprising amount of airports that lack D-ATIS.

This whole conversation brings up a bunch of sore spots for me though including annoying ATIS things and NOTAMS.

My ATIS list includes: "Bird activity" has this note ever affected anyone's decision making? It's like some BS legal disclaimer that's maybe supoosed to alleviate liability? Maybe?
Also, it really grinds my gears when ATC asks if you have the new ATIS on a clear VFR day. It's like, "Why don't you just tell me what the new altimeter is and we'll keep focused on taxiing?"
I've stopped mentioning the ATIS identifier when checking in because they ALWAYS ask if you have information [x] anyway. If they're going to ask anyway, I'm just going to offer minimal participation.

Yeah and NOTAMS, METARS, and TAFS all need to evolve from the teletype era. I hate playing flight instructor trivia with codes and abbreviations to say nothing of UTC conversions. Local time advisories, I believe, would save a lot of errors since scheduled air service tends to use local time formats almost exclusively.

But as history has shown us, people have to die before the FAA will institute a common sense policy change.

Fly safe, now!
 
Luigi said:
If I need a sudden ALT, I can use that 45 minutes legally as alt burn to COS, STC, BFI, FNT, etc.
Click to expand...

Do you mean just using the fuel to get to an alternate or amending a release with an alternate using just the 45 min FAR fuel? One is legal under unplanned circumstances and the other is not under any circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top