TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Pilots Say Airlines Are Cutting Fuel Levels Dangerously Low

ADVERTISEMENT

The Associated Press

Published: August 9, 2008

WASHINGTON - Pilots are complaining that their airline bosses, desperate to cut costs, are forcing them to fly uncomfortably low on fuel.

Safety for passengers and crews could be compromised, they say.

The situation got bad enough three years ago, even before the latest surge in fuel prices, that NASA sent a safety alert to federal aviation officials.

No action.

Since then, pilots, flight dispatchers and others have continued to sound off with their own warnings, yet the Federal Aviation Administration says there is no reason to order airlines to back off their effort to keep fuel loads to a minimum.

"We can't dabble in the business policies or the personnel policies of an airline," said FAA spokesman Les Dorr. He said there was no indication safety regulations were being violated.

'I Need To Get On The Ground'

The September 2005 safety alert was issued by NASA's confidential Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows air crews to report safety problems without fear their names will be disclosed.

"What we found was that because they carried less fuel on the airplane, they were getting into situations where they had to tell air traffic control, 'I need to get on the ground,'" said Linda Connell, director of the NASA reporting system.

With fuel prices now their biggest cost, airlines are aggressively enforcing new policies designed to reduce consumption.

In March, for example, an airline pilot told NASA he landed his regional jet with less fuel than required by FAA regulations.

"Looking back," he said, "I would have liked more gas yesterday." He also complained that his airline was "ranking" captains according to who landed with the least amount.

A month earlier, a Boeing 747 captain reported running low on fuel after meeting strong headwinds crossing the Atlantic en route to John F. Kennedy International Airport. He said he wanted to stop to add fuel but continued on to Kennedy after consulting his airline's operations manager, who told him there was adequate fuel aboard the jet.

When the plane arrived at Kennedy, the captain said it had so little fuel that had there been any delay in landing, "I would have had to declare a fuel emergency" - a term that tells air traffic controllers a plane needs immediate priority to land.

The last major U.S. air crash attributed to low fuel was on Jan. 25, 1990, when an Avianca Boeing 707 ran out while waiting to land at Kennedy. Seventy-three of 158 aboard were killed.

FAA regulations require airliners to take off with enough fuel to reach their destination or an alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes of flight. The regulations also say it's up to dispatchers and pilots to decide the size of fuel loads, with pilots making the final call.

Spare fuel beyond the minimum required by FAA is often added to airliners to allow for weather or airport delays. That adds weight, which burns more fuel and increases a plane's operating cost. A Washington-to-Los Angeles flight by an Airbus 320 with 150 passengers burns about 29,500 pounds, or 4,300 gallons, of fuel. That costs about $14,600. Adding an additional 1,500 pounds, about 219 gallons, would cost about $750 more.

Complaints about airlines scrimping on fuel aren't limited to those submitted to the NASA system.

Pilots Under Pressure

Labor unions at two major airlines - American Airlines and US Airways - have filed complaints with the FAA, saying the airlines are pressuring members not to request spare fuel for flights.

American notified dispatchers on July 7 that their records on fuel approved for flights would be monitored, and dispatchers not abiding by company guidelines could ultimately be fired.

American said its fuel costs this year were expected to increase to $10 billion, 52 percent greater than 2007. "The additional cost of carrying unnecessary fuel adversely affects American's financial success," the airline told dispatchers in a letter.

Union officials responded that "it appears safety has become a second thought" for the company.

At US Airways, the pilots' union took out an ad in USA Today on July 16 charging that eight senior captains had been singled out by the company for requesting extra fuel and had been required to attend training sessions. The union said the training order was a message to other pilots not to request extra fuel.

American and US Airways blame the complaints on heated labor negotiations - both are in contract talks with the complaining unions.

"It's not a safety issue; it's a contract issue," said John Hotard, a spokesman for American.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency has conducted several analyses of airline fuel practices but found no instances of the minimum being violated or pilots' fuel requests being denied.

"We didn't see any proposed changes we thought needed to be made," Brown said.

PILOT REPORTS

The Aviation Safety Reporting System - a database maintained by NASA - has reports from pilots expressing safety concerns about airline directives pressuring them to fly with uncomfortably low fuel levels. NASA deletes names and other identifying information to encourage pilots, flight crews, dispatchers and others to identify safety problems, including their own mistakes.

Some reports:

•In March, the captain of an Embraer 170 regional jet described landing with less fuel than required under Federal Aviation Administration regulations, which he blamed on his company's fuel policies.

"I know our program manager is ranking captains on landing with less fuel. I don't care to be ranked. I think this is a safety problem and I believe fuel is your friend," the captain said. "Looking back, I would have liked more gas yesterday, and I was already carrying tanker fuel. If I wouldn't have had this extra there would have been real problems."

(Tanker fuel is the extra fuel a plane might carry to avoid refueling in a place where the cost is very high.)

•The captain of a Boeing 747 said he began to run low on fuel after meeting strong headwinds over the Atlantic en route to JFK in New York in February. After contacting his company to discuss a refueling stop, the captain said he was told by his operations manager that the flight actually needed less fuel than had been loaded on board and would have enough to get to JFK without stopping.

But by the time he reached JFK, his fuel was "far below my comfort zone and probably less than the minimum fuel required by the FARs (federal aviation regulations)," the captain said. "Our fuel situation had not become critical yet, but had we had any delay, I would have had to declare a fuel emergency."

"I am not sure if the 'flight plan' as given to me by my company was a real flight plan, or if they were just telling me it was so that I would continue to JFK ... thus saving them time and expense. ... In the future, if such a situation presents itself again, I will divert to my initial destination regardless of what my company says I can do. The safety of my crew far outweighs any financial burden to the company."

• The captain of a Boeing 737 en route to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in February said he was forced to divert in bad weather to Palm Beach International Airport to refuel because less than the normal amount of fuel for the flight was loaded before takeoff.

"This was probably the new fuel-saving initiative by the company management to save money," the captain said. "North-South operation is very unpredictable along the East Coast. I don't think this is a place where we should skimp on fuel."

The captain said he had a "lengthy discussion" with his company's dispatcher "relaying my opinion on the reduced fuel load and my suggestion not to compromise fuel loads in and out of Florida." But the captain said he received the same reduced amount on his next flight.

"So much for my professional input!" he said.

• The captain of an Airbus 319 said he was en route to Miami, but an unexpected rain storm forced the flight to divert to Ft. Lauderdale to refuel "because in an attempt to abide by the new fuel conservation procedures just adopted by the company, not enough fuel was put on the aircraft to handle a simple delay. ... In an effort to save money, an aircraft had to divert. The aircraft arrived at its destination two hours late. Finally, the pilots had to get off their trip early because of fatigue and because they would have flown nine hours and 40 minutes if they had continued on."

• The pilot of an Embraer 135 regional jet on an international flight in poor weather last December complained that his dispatcher wanted to load only an extra 10 minutes worth of fuel in case the flight had to hold before landing.

"Ten minutes of hold fuel remained unchanged because management is pressuring dispatch to fly with limited hold fuel to reduce 'costs,'" the captain said. "Ten minutes of hold fuel into an airport with marginal conditions because the dispatcher does not want his/her name on the fuel list for the week printed and hung by management. Contacted dispatcher and, after 'captain requested it,' fuel was begrudgingly added to 20 minutes to accurately reflect conditions. Low weather at an international destination with few alternatives close by and no gas to hold.

"Get management out of the dispatch process and stop pressuring dispatchers to cut fuel to below safe and normal levels. Create a profile for holding based on reality, not bonus program of a few in management."

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT