Pilots complain companies are forcing them to fly on ‘dangerously low fuel’

Adding another dimension to the beleaguered aviation industry, pilots are complaining that, in a desperate attempt to cut costs, airline companies are forcing them to fly “uncomfortably low on fuel,” thereby putting at risk the safety of passengers and crew. ‘Low fuel’ is a part of the new policies airlines the world over are employing in order to reduce fuel consumption.

The fear of the pilots regarding ‘low fuel’ has been brought to light by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the agency of the United States government responsible for the nation’s space programme.

The confidential reporting system of NASA says that it has heard from pilots who had to tell air traffic control that they needed to get their planes on the ground because they were carrying less fuel than that was required.

The Aviation Safety Reporting System – a database maintained by NASA – includes reports from pilots expressing safety concerns about airlines’ directives that force them to fly with “uncomfortably low fuel levels.”

It is the practice of NASA to deletes names and other identifying information from its Aviation Safety Reporting System in order to encourage pilots, flight crews, dispatchers and others to identify safety problems, including their own mistakes.

Here are samples from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System:

* In March 2008, the captain of an Embraer 170 regional jet described landing with less fuel than required under the US Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The captain, who blamed the situation on his company’s fuel policies, explained: “I know our programme 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. 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 additional fuel an aircraft might carry in order to avoid refueling in a place where the cost of fuel 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 John F Kennedy International in New York in February 2008. After contacting his company to discuss a stop for refueling, 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 Airport without stopping. But, by the time he reached JFK Airport, the captain said the fuel was “far below my comfort zone and probably less than the minimum fuel required by the federal aviation regulations.”

* In February 2008, the captain of a Boeing 737 en route to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, located in Dania Beach, Florida, said he was forced to divert in bad weather to Palm Beach International Airport, Palm Beach, Florida, to refuel because less than the normal amount of fuel for the flight was loaded before takeoff. Said the captain: “North-South operation is very unpredictable along the East Coast, and I don’t think this is a place where we should skimp on fuel. I 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 he received the same reduced amount on his next flight.

* The captain of an Airbus 319 was en route to Miami, Florida, but an unexpected rainstorm forced him to divert the flight to Fort Lauderdale. He said: “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 2 hours late. Finally, the pilots had to get off their trip early because of fatigue and because they would have flown 9 hours and 40 minutes if they had continued on.”

* The pilot of an Embraer 135 regional jet on an international flight in poor weather in December 2007 complained that his dispatcher wanted to load only an extra 10 minutes’ worth of fuel in case the flight had to hold before landing. The captain described the situation thus: “Ten minutes of hold fuel remained unchanged because management is pressuring dispatch to fly with limited hold fuel to reduce costs. The dispatcher was contacted, and fuel was begrudgingly added to 20 minutes to accurately reflect conditions.”