Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?

[NAPAUS]

I think you will find the basic add of fuel in the range of 3000lbs....ie 15-20 minutes at holding speeds....

Nobody would question anyone on this add if it were not for ( shall we say other issues.....)

How many times did these individuals hold????
How fast did they fly on the leg to philly?
Did they add fuel on the way to europe?
What time was their comutte home?

There are a substantial amount of airports short of Philly that can accomodate the 75/76...
have they ever diverted before???

If they are legitamately concerned about running out of fuel, then some groundschool and or discussion should allay those fears..
if they still feel uncomfortable, maybe long haul isnt suited for them??

if on the other hand they were "making their commute".....

:down: :down: All it will take is ONE horrific( god forbid ) accident/crash, because they wasn't enough reserve fuel. If US cant afford the basics- fuel - then they DONT belong in business- pure and simple!

 

[FlightChic]

I saw on the ABC nightly news where USAPA took out a big, one page ad from the USA Today about this. Way to go!

For those of you who think not having excess fuel is no big deal and that we are a bunch of whining babies, then you need to pull your head out of the sand ASAP. This is no "laughing" nor "yawning" matter. If you've never worked a flight that was about to run out of fuel then you have absolutely no right to say we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I've been there and personally I don't like having my safety nor my passenger's safety at risk.

 

[hp_fa]

You work group ,much like the FA'S has no leverage ... you waitied too long .

Flame bait alert...

 

[US Oringinal]

I saw on the ABC nightly news where USAPA took out a big, one page ad from the USA Today about this. Way to go!

For those of you who think not having excess fuel is no big deal and that we are a bunch of whining babies, then you need to pull your head out of the sand ASAP. This is no "laughing" nor "yawning" matter. If you've never worked a flight that was about to run out of fuel then you have absolutely no right to say we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I've been there and personally I don't like having my safety nor my passenger's safety at risk.

RIGHT ON CHIC!!! YOU'RE RIGHT ON THE MONEY. When you start sacrificing safety in order to save a few bucks, it's time for you to get out of the airline business!!! Our aircraft CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be flown from TEMPE!!

 

[wench1]

Just saw this on FOX news... :down:

 

[sharktooth]

Oil remains above 130 something a barrel … you have no leverage , give up …

Safety needs no leverage.

Placing the "success of a company" above that of safety is inherently asinine. Perhaps you should give it up and get out, enabling chiselers like you do.

 

[ALCARLOS]

Yawn … the pilots are complaining ….

How many planes have falen from the sky without fuel?

 

[Garfield]

Flame bait alert...

you could say that also koolaid drinker alert

 

[sharktooth]

How many planes have falen from the sky without fuel?

Several, actually. At least one in New York and one in the state of Washington. and, those were jets.

Your arrogance is outstanding.

 

[Phoenix]

How many planes have falen from the sky without fuel?

There have been a number of commercial passenger planes that have run out of fuel, with obvious effect. It has occurred many more times in general aviation than in commercial flights. Even so the number has been relatively small because Captains are well trained and the FAA/ICAO rules regarding fuel requirements are good solid rules.

 

[luvthe9]

How many planes have falen from the sky without fuel?

There's more if you look
United Airlines Flight 173
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United Airlines Flight 173 Summary
Date December 28, 1978
Type Pilot error, CRM
Site Portland, Oregon
Passengers 181
Crew 8
Injuries 24
Fatalities 10
Survivors 179
Aircraft type McDonnell-Douglas DC-8-61
Operator United Airlines
Tail number N8082U
United Airlines Flight 173, registration N8082U[1], was a Douglas DC-8-61 en route from Stapleton International Airport in Denver to Portland International Airport on December 28, 1978. When the landing gear was lowered, only two of the green landing gear indicator lights came on. The plane circled in the vicinity of Portland while the crew investigated the problem. After about one hour the plane ran out of fuel and crashed in a sparsely populated area near 158th and East Burnside Ave, killing 10 and seriously injuring 24 of the 189 on board. Avianca Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport via Medellín, Colombia's José María Córdova International Airport. On Thursday, January 25, 1990, the aircraft performing this flight, a Boeing 707-321B registered as HK-2016, crashed into the town of Cove Neck, Long Island, New York after running out of fuel. 8 of 9 crew members and 65 of 149 passengers on board were killed.[1]

 

[GolfNovember]

After Larry King tonight, Anderson Cooper will also be talking about US Airways with this entire fuel fiasco. This is an interesting night on CNN indeed!

 

[GuntherA320]

How many planes have falen from the sky without fuel?

Well i can think of 5 passenger airliners in the last 30 years. The question is how many have landed on fumes with just minutes of fuel left. Those never get reported. The pilots just look at each other and say, "Man, lets never do that again". Ask any pilot if he's ever landed with less fuel that he was comfortable with. At some point in our careers, we all have. It's not a good feeling.

 

[sharktooth]

Well i can think of 5 passenger airliners in the last 30 years. The question is how many have landed on fumes with just minutes of fuel left. Those never get reported. The pilots just look at each other and say, "Man, lets never do that again". Ask any pilot if he's ever landed with less fuel that he was comfortable with. At some point in our careers, we all have. It's not a good feeling.

I know of a 767 Transatlantic landing in PHL, shutting down with less than 6 minutes of fuel, 6 minutes assuming a missed approach and emergency vector for landing.

It is like a flight plan from PHL-SFO with OAK as an alternate. The flight plan says 6 minutes and x gas from a SFO to OAK at least four minutes direct. Everyone who flies this route knows a missed approach at SFO will be through the pass, up to Point Reyes, down the east side of the bay to interface with numerous aircraft seeking a safe place to land other than SFO costing at least an extra ten minutes. The computer is wrong. The company is wrong to enforce such a pathetic directive.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Pathetic pieces of dog poopoo. You are an idiot to accept such a (wishful thinking)

I will always put the passenger safety over company "directives".

 

[UPNAWAY]

Just saw an article in the Arizona republic that said the airline pads with 60-90 minutes of extra fuel and these Pilots are consistently over that
So this is not a safety issue despite what the union says it is a control/authority issue.
My question is why does training potentially put the Pilots license at risk?