I'd be very wary to get ahead of the investigation and make speculative statements on how this could have happened, the one thing that I know for sure is that it shouldn't have happened, no matter what.
On this one, they did 3 attempted landings at Prestwick. [Edit: I now see that the third attempt was at EDI] What happened between the first and the second landing that made them think on their second go-around that a third attempt was more likely to succeed than the previous two? Was the wind dying down, or was the captain just feeling a bit braver or stupider? [Edit: I'm still curious as to what information they gathered that landing conditions were significantly different at EDI to make that diversion, given its relatively close and so likely to have similar weather].
Why was their final reserve Manchester when there were literally dozens of closer suitable airports, at least some of which are likely to have had better wind conditions by virtue of lower gusts, or more aligned to runway direction so not dealing with a strong crosswind?
There are many reasons I won't fly Ryanair, but not least because they have been shown over and over again to make reckless planning and operational decisions, and they are fortunate to have not had hull losses as a result. Time is ticking down, variance will catch them one day, and a sad & tragic catastrophe is only a matter of time. People will go to prison as a result, because this pattern of behaviour shows that this isn't "bad luck", it's calculated risk taking with passenger and crew lives to save money.
I swore off them a decade ago when I realised how adversarial their relationship with their passengers is.
Until an accident does happen, I have no doubt they'll trouser a lot of cash.
My colleague thought he was portraying the CEO as a cool guy and decisive manager, but I thought the guy sounds like a sociopath.
On a nominally 2h45m flight, they spent an extra 2 hours in the air, presumably doing doing fuel intensive altitude changing maneuvers, and were eventually able to land safely with their reserves almost exhausted.
I’m a little confused by what there is to investigate at all.
How much fuel should they have landed with?
hazardous state + environmental conditions = accident
Since we can only control the system, and not its environment, we focus on preventing hazardous states, rather than accidents. If we can keep the system out of all hazardous states, we also avoid accidents. (Trying to prevent accidents while not paying attention to hazardous states amounts to relying on the environment always being on our side, and is bound to fail eventually.)
One such hazardous state we have defined in aviation is "less than N minutes of fuel remaining when landing". If an aircraft lands with less than N minutes of fuel on board, it would only have taken bad environmental conditions to make it crash, rather than land. Thus we design commercial aviation so that planes always have N minutes of fuel remaining when landing. If they don't, that's a big deal: they've entered a hazardous state, and we never want to see that. (I don't remember if N is 30 or 45 or 60 but somewhere in that region.)
For another example, one of my children loves playing around cliffs and rocks. Initially he was very keen on promising me that he wouldn't fall down. I explained the difference between accidents and hazardous states to him in childrens' terms, and he realised slowly that he cannot control whether or not he has an accident, so it's a bad idea to promise me that he won't have an accident. What he can control is whether or not bad environmental conditions lead to an accident, and he does that by keeping out of hazardous states. In this case, the hazardous state would be standing less than a child-height within a ledge when there is nobody below ready to catch. He can promise me to avoid that, and that satisfies me a lot more than a promise to not fall.
As for 'N', for turboprops it is 45, for jets it is 30.
I intend to come back to it some day, but I do not think that day is today.
Just a thought I had while reading your introduction: this is applicable even to running a successful business model. I'm honestly having trouble even putting it into words, but you have my analytical mind going now at a very late hour... Thanks!
Edit: please post your link from above as a separate submission.
Also, your train-of-thought is pretty deep; bulleting runs out of steam and gets visually confusing, especially with the article table-of-contents on RHS, you're only using <50% of screen width. Suggest you need numbered/lettered lists and section headings and use the full screen width.
(note: obviously sarcastic but kids really do have some amazing insights that we forget when trying to chase KPIs or revenue)
#12: One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.
#60: My five-year-old child advisor will also be asked to decipher any code I am thinking of using. If he breaks the code in under 30 seconds, it will not be used. Note: this also applies to passwords.
#74: When I create a multimedia presentation of my plan designed so that my five-year-old advisor can easily understand the details, I will not label the disk "Project Overlord" and leave it lying on top of my desk.
That being said: I have - for some years now - started to read air accident board reports (depending on your locale, they may be named slightly different). They make for a fascinating read, and they have made me approach debugging and postmortems in a more structured, more holistic way. They should be freely available on your transportation safety board websites (NTSB in America, BFU in Germany, ...)
https://sre.google/stpa/teaching
Disclaimer: currently employed by Google, this message is not sponsored.
(Will now be checking out your blog.)
The reason they had less than 30 minutes of fuel was because the environment wasn't on their side. They started out with a normal amount of reserve and then things went quite badly and the reserve was sufficient but only just.
The question then is, how much of an outlier was this? Was this a perfect storm that only happens once in a century and the thing worse than this that would actually have exhausted the reserve only happens once in ten centuries? Or are planes doing this every Tuesday which would imply that something is very wrong?
There are multiple controllers interacting with the system (the FADEC computer in the engines, the flight management computer in the plane, pilots, ground crew, dispatchers, air traffic controllers, the people at EASA drafting regulations, etc.), trying to keep it outside of hazardous conditions. They do so by observing the state the system and the environment is in ("feedback"), running simulations of how it will evolve in the future ("mental models"), and making adjustments to the system ("control inputs") to keep it outside of hazardous conditions.
Whenever the system enters a hazardous condition, there was something that made these controllers insufficient. Either someone had inadequate feedback, or inadequate mental models, or the control inputs were inoperational or insufficient. Or sometimes an entire controller that ought to have been there was missing!
In this case it seems like the hazard could have been avoided any number of ways: ground the plane, add more fuel, divert sooner, be more conservative about weather on alternates, etc. Which control input is appropriate and how to ensure it is enacted in the future is up to the real investigators with access to all data necessary.
-----
You are correct that we will not ever be able to set up a system where all controllers are able to always keep it out of hazardous states perfectly. If that was a thing we would never have any accident ever – we would only have intentional losses that are calculated to be worth their revenue in additional efficiency.
But by adopting the right framework for thinking about this ("how do active controllers dynamically keep the system out of hazards?") we can do a pretty good job of preventing most such problems. The good news is that predicting hazardous states is much easier than predicting accidents, so we can actually do a lot of this design up-front without first having an accident happen and then learning from it.
I don't think this philosophy can work.
If you can't control whether the environment will push you from a hazardous state into a failure state, you also can't control whether the environment will push you from a nonhazardous state into a hazardous state.
If staying out of hazardous conditions is a dynamic control problem requiring on-the-fly adjustment from local actors, exactly the same thing is true of staying out of failure states.
The point of defining hazardous states is that they are a buffer between you and failure. Sometimes you actually need the buffer. If you didn't, the hazardous state wouldn't be hazardous.
But the only possible outcome of treating entering a hazardous state as equivalent to entering a failure state is that you start panicking whenever an airplane touches down with less than a hundred thousand gallons of fuel.
Flight plans require you to look at the weather reports of your destination before you take off and pick at least one or two alternates that will let you divert if the weather is marginal. The fuel you load includes several redundancies to deal with different unexpected conditions[1] as well as the need to divert if you cannot land.
There have been a few historical cases of planes running out of fuel (and quite a few cases of planes landing with only reserve fuel), and usually the root cause was a pilot not making the decision to go to an alternate airport soon enough or not declaring an emergency immediately -- even with very dynamic weather conditions you should have enough fuel for a go-around, holding, and going to an alternate.
[1]: https://www.casa.gov.au/guidelines-aircraft-fuel-requirement...
That being said, the fact that (AFAICS) they first tried to divert to a closer airport where the weather was similar rather than an alternate with clear weather was probably one of the causes of this event.
With a major storm heading north-easterly across the UK, the planning should have reasonably foreseen that an airport 56 miles east may also be unavailable, and should've further diverted prior to that point.
They likely used the majority of their final fuel reserve on the secondary diversion from EDI to MAN, presumably having planned to land at their alternate (EDI) around the time they reached the final fuel reserve.
Any CAA report into this, if there is one produced, is going to be interesting, because there's multiple people having made multiple decisions that led to this.
§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed
If the plane is going fast as well, that exhaust is more or less stationary relative to the ground. The engine works to exchange the position of the plane with the position of the air in front of it.
If the plane is going slow, it's accelerating the air backwards. That's where the work is going, making the engine less efficient.
Think about it this way: if the jet airplane is tied to the ground, its engines are running at 0% efficiency, working hard to blow the air backwards. You wouldn't want to stand behind a jet engine when the plane is about to take off, when that's effectively the case.
The same applies to propeller-driven planes, of course. But those can vary the prop speed as well as propeller pitch, having more control on how fast the air is being pushed backwards. This allows the engine to be efficient at a wider ranger of speeds, particularly, at the slower range.
But the propeller has a limit of how fast it can push the air back. When the prop blades start reaching the speed of sound, weird shit starts happening [1]. So propeller-driven aircraft have a limit on speeds at which they can go efficiently.
Jet engines (turbofans when it comes to airliners) trade off low efficiency at low speed / low altitude (where the airplane is spending a small percentage of flight time) for higher efficiency at high speed / high altitude.
Variable pitch turbine fans[2] aim to address this tradeoff, but the tech has yet to catch on.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscreech
Jet needs to suck air from front. If air is stopped, sucking is hard. If air is already being thrown at you, you don't even need to suck, just let it come in.
Edit: in other comments here, it seems like Edinburgh to Manchester is a 45 minute flight. So yeah, they could easily have been outside of reserves when they did the go-around at Edinburgh and still had only 6 minutes left at Manchester.
Ive never flown on Ryanair and dont intend to.
Do you have anything other than this single incident to back up your insinuation that they’re less safe than a full service airline?
In theory though that shouldn't matter because as you say, the legal minimum should really be enough.
The consequence of that is everybody ending up in the wrong place, but not in an unsafe way.
Yes, you get "some" back, and its not negligible amount. Typical modern airliner can descend on 15-20:1, giving you over 150-200km (90-120mi) range from typical cruising altitude of 33 000 feet even with engines off. Most everyday descents are actually done by maintaining altitude as long as possible, and then iddling the engines fully for as long as clearance allows. (Ofc you then use engines as you geat nearer, because its safer to be a little low when stabilizing on approach, than a little high)
Thanks to turbofans(edited from turboprops) better efficiency + less drag at higher altitude its actually more fuel economical to command full thrust and gain altitude quickly, than slower climb, or maintaining altitude (which goes against our intuition from cars, where if you wanna get far, you never give full throttle).
But theres still some drag, so you dont get everything back, so you generally want to avoid murking in low altitudes as long as possible. Full thrust repeatedly at lowest altitudes (from failed go arounds) is the least economical part of flight, so you want to avoid those if possible. But its true that the altitude you gain is equivalent to "banking" the energy, just not all of it.
Edit: changed turbofan into turbprop, which is what I meant.
(2) fuel burned stays burned, you don't 'get it back'
(3) the altitude gained may have been adjusted to account for the low fuel situation
(4) the winds are a major factor here, far larger than the fact that 'what goes up must come down', something that is already taken into account when computing the fuel reserve in the first place.
> fuel burned stays burned, you don't 'get it back'
So you only ever really lost your "altitude" component of energy, not "velocity" one. You run your engines at TOGA (Take Off / Go Around = maximum thrust), thrust to gain mainly altitude, only increasing speed a little bit. Then on another approach attempt you use both the altitude and excess velocity bank again.
In flight, ~all your energy losses go to drag. Doesn't matter if you bank it into speed or altitude, both is exchanged to be at minimums (0 altitude above ground, lowest safe landing speed) at touchdown. If you produce extra energy in your engines, it has to go to either speed or altitude, which you then pull out again, usually by maintaining speed while lowering altitude while having engines at idle.
(2) I know glider pilots who fly without any fuel at all, once aloft… sounds not unlike the 150-200km glide range that @MaxikCZ mentions at idle from cruising altitude.
[0] https://aeroreport.de/en/good-to-know/how-does-a-turbofan-en...
[1] e.g. https://ciechanow.ski/airfoil/
Im gonna be a little pedantic, but the weight has surprisingly small effect on glide range, actually none of the weight affect the range directly, its all from secondary effects.
The glide is given mainly by drag and lift (so body and wing geometry), correlated to certain speed. The weight isnt in the equation at all. What weight does, is increases the speed in which the aircraft achieves this maximum glide ratio, and in higher speed you have higher drag, which finally reduces the range.
Thats why many modern gliders have water tanks in wings, to increase the weight of the glider, moving planes speed of best glide ratio higher, allowing for more efficiency at higher speeds. Its worth it if the atmospheric condition provide strong lifts. Pilot can then dump the water in flight to reduce the wing load, allowing them to land with less speed, or just keep in the air longer as thermals get weaker in the afternoon/evening
(source, I used to be a glider pilot)
But of course that doesn’t mean that airliners can’t glide well, the Gimly Glider and Air Transat flight come to mind. But gliders can definitely beat an airliner in terms of performance.
The distinction is less pronounced nowadays, because there is no mondern aircraft designed as gliders-but-not-sailplanes, but historically there were planes that fit this niche, mostly military transport of WW1 and WW2 vintage.
Passenger jets (with engines turned off) are relatively decent gliders, but incapable of soaring. So no, you can't get more that about 20:1 glide ratio no matter how good is the weather (for sailplanes).
I am being serious, if you cannot tell.
I rough guessed the cost of fuel over a 737's life as $150 million. Where the engines cost something around $30 million. That pushes the engineering economics towards maximizing the engines efficiency.
I'm suspicious that bypass ratio's for turbofans are close to maxed out. The diameter of the fan gets unwieldy. That was the design issue that the 737 Max was trying to get around. With bad results. Possible the future is hybrid designs with two engines and 4 or more electrically driven fans.
Actually, nothing in civil aviation that has a "jet engine" has used anything but a turbofan (or turboprop) since the early 70s with the exception of Concorde and some older business jets.
(Turboprops are jet engines, too, to be precise, with the jet of exhaust gases powering the propeller.)
They are certainly turbine engines, but I thought "jet" was reserved for those engines that propel the vehicle solely by their exhaust stream and bypass air. I am willing to be told I'm wrong, though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56#CFM56-...
2) It stays burned, but the energy is banked in potential energy of the aircraft, namely in a form of altitude. If you run out of fuel 5 feet above ground, you dont get to fly far. When you run out of fuel 35000 feet above ground, you can still choose where to land from multiple options.
3) huh? I dont get what you trying to say, but: Its always more economical to climb, and the faster the better. Ofc you cant climb too high when you intend to attempt to land in 5-10 mins, but nontheless, every feet gained is "banked", and the aircraft is more economical to run the higher you are.
4) I am not saying the winds arent a factor, and in no way I was arguing about how fuel reserves are calculated. My only claim is that: yes, by spending more fuel to gain altitude, you can then "glide" down almost for free later. Its not 1:1, because of constant losses like drag, but its being compensated by higher engine efficiency and less drag at altitude, that its always worth it to climb if you can.
There was a flight that was low on fuel diverting to alternate between 2 islands. The pilot panicked and chose slower climb to intuitively save fuel. They had to ditch the plane in water because of it - if they initiated full climb, they would have made the jump.
Yes, you get a lot of the energy back, BUT there is a huge problem!
Large airliners incur a LOT of additional drag to slow down while landing. Some of that is entirely intentional, some is less intentional.
It is highly preferred to deploy the landing gear before touching down. Failure to do so may lead to a hard landing and additional paperwork, so airlines do not allow the captain to exercise their own discretion.
Extending the flaps maintains lift at lower speed, and higher flap settings allow even lower speed. The highest flap setting generally also deploys leading edge slats.
If the wheels of the airliner touch down and detect the weight of the plane then spoilers kill the lift of the wings, air brakes fully deploy, as well as thrust reversers.
All of these things add drag, which uses up all that energy you've been converting.
The upshot is that each landing attempt uses a LOT of energy, and you have to use fuel to replenish that energy after every attempt.
In other words, yes you get it back, but only for one landing attempt.
Indeed, which is what the airplane would have done on its way down to land. So it's more like riding the brakes on your way down the hill, and now at the bottom when you realize you need to abort the landing, you are at low speed and it's quite an exercise to get back uphill to try again
But not because “you don’t get the energy back”. (As recursive suggested about a downhill bike ride which is the part i am disagreeing with.) You do get it back, but because you want to land you bleed it away to drag. And once it is bled away you don’t have it anymore.
So we don’t disagree about the practical implications for flying. I’m disagreeing with recursive’s particular statement about downhill cycling and what it implies about the physics of the problem.
In general forward slips are safe, but yes you have to make sure you keep the nose down/speed up. There's little in aviation that isn't dangerous if you aren't careful.
More dangerous than inadvertently spinning with too little airspeed is the possibility of shock cooling when relying on a forward slip for too much altitude loss. It really does need to be well-controlled.
If you coast all the way down the first part, you'll get about 20 feet up the other hill before you need to start pedaling. This is a direct analogy to "getting your energy back" by losing elevation.
But you don’t have to believe me. Look at the video of this glider doing an unlicensed airshow: https://youtu.be/QwK9wu8Cxeo?si=L-0Mfmu8wk1ZlQU7
It is a glider so it can’t “pedal”. You can see it steeply descending from 5:13 to 5:30 while it is speeding up and then the pilot picks up the nose and trades some of his speed for elevation again. And then he does it again around the 7 minutes mark.
You have two buckets of “water”. One bucket is kinetic energy and the other is potential energy. You can trade one for the other. You can also “lose” from the total volume of “water” due to drag (or friction in the case of the bike or roller coaster). Or you can add more “water” to your system by pedaling or thrusting with your engines. This is just simple physics 101. Also simple lived experience if you ever have the opportunity to fly an airplane.
It's not currently feasible to harvest it into fuel. It's (very very nearly) all lost to drag, on purpose.
So the entire climb "up", you are also wasting energy fighting the thick air. On the way back "down", that air again fights you, even though you are basically at idle thrust.
Your fuel reserves are calculated for cruise flight, so time spent doing low altitude flying is already at a disadvantage. "Two hours of reserves" is significantly less than that spent holding at a few thousand feet. Fuel efficiency while climbing is yet again dramatically worse
One of the challenges of aeronautics is the efficient disposition of the potential energy without converting it all into kinetic energy (ie speed) so that the landing happens at an optimally low speed - thus giving you a chance to brake and slow down at the end.
An electric fan aircraft absolutely can recharge it's batteries on descent. The fans simply act as turbines, creating drag to slow the aircraft and electricity to charge the batteries. Large commercial airliners already have a small turbine that works this way, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) which is used to generate electrical power in emergencies.
RAT is only used when sh*t hits the fan. Even then, it can help you power some hydraulics / electrical, not “store” energy for further flight.
The OP asked - in a low fuel situation, can the energy spent on a climb get effectively recovered - and the answer is not really. We convert as much as we can into unpowered (low-powered) descent. But once you are at a spot where you make a final decision to land or not, you are by design low and slow - and all that energy you had 15m ago is gone.
If you need to keep flying, those engines need to spool back up. And that takes fuel.
Such aircraft do exist. For example, the Pipistrel Velis Electro trainer. And more recently, the Rhyxeon RX4E became the first electric aircraft to be type-certified for commercial passenger operations.
It's likely that we'll see many more electric fan aircraft in the coming years/decades, whether powered by batteries and/or hydrogen fuel cells, or hybrids with both conventional turbofan and electric propulsion in order to improve efficiency and environmental performance.
Isn't it when air hits the fan, technically?
(Sorry.)
This is one of the multiple layers of defense that airlines employ. In theory, no one single failure should cause a major incident because of redundancies and planning. Airlines rely on the "Swiss-cheese" model of safety. Each layer has its own risks and "holes" but by layering enough layers together there should be no clear path between all of the layers. In theory this prevents major incidents and given the commercial airline's safety records I'd say it works pretty fucking well. Landing with minutes of fuel left should be exceptional. But it also shouldn't be fatal or a major risk due to the other layers of the system. ATC will move heaven and earth to land a plane low on fuel or with engine trouble safely. And everyone else in the system having 30+ minutes of extra fuel gives the space for this sort of emergency sorting.
I think this also reflects on the "efficiency" that MBA types bring to companies that they ruin. If an MBA sees a dozen landings with an extra hour of fuel, their mind starts churning at saving money. Surely an hour of extra fuel is too much and just wasted. Wasted because every extra gallon of fuel you take off with is extra weight you have to carry throughout the flight. Surely things would be more efficient if we could make sure planes only carry enough fuel to make their trip with very minimal overhead. And when everything goes perfectly according to plan, these decisions work out fine. Money is saved. Bonuses are paid. But the inevitable always happens. That's why it's called inevitable. Lives are lost. Wrists are slapped. Some people at the bottom lose their jobs. The world moves on.
It sounds to me like they tried harder at their intended destination than maybe they should have, followed by going to an alternate airport that probably wasn’t a good choice in the first place, and then having to divert to the final airport where luckily they could land in time.
I have no clue how else to think about it though.
I.e. prevent the journey from occurring if weather conditions are likely to be adverse above a certain threshold?
If you ever cut into your safety allowance, you've already fucked up. Your expected design criteria should account for all use cases, nominal or worst-case. The safety factor is there for safety, it is never intended to be used.
The approach is basically “accounting for everything that might go wrong to the best of our experience, including problems arising from the complex interactions between the airplane and supporting ground systems and processes, this is how much fuel you need in the worst case scenario. And now lets add more to give us a cushion, and we will treat consumption of this last reserve as tantamount to a crash.”
You're confused why they should investigate how everyone on that flight came within minutes of dying?
Something about the fuel reserves, procedures, or execution was clearly flawed.
This is just clarifying the question from the perspective of an outsider.
That said, an investigation would be pretty reasonable, even if only to confirm that the abornamlity were forces majeures
- This does not happen once every 100k flights. That's once per day
- If this were happening once every 100k flights we would be adding another half hour to the reserve tomorrow.
I’m not an expert in this field, but it would seem that the weight of extra fuel would increase operating costs, so it’s is effectively insurance. How much extra fuel should be carried to account for unplanned events like this, while not carrying so much that it becomes cost prohibitive.
Edit: Here is the Wiki on incidents... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_starvation_and_fuel_exhau...
There were also two factors in the landing, that allowed for this to happen. You're going to be coming in really fast for a landing, when gliding in a commercial jet, and you don't have access to your thrust reversers to slow it down. There was a repurposed runway, that they used to land, that just happened to have been used as a drag racing track and had a guard rail. They were able to slow down by scraping across that. It also just so happened the nose gear didn't deploy fully so scraping the nose of the plane against the ground also helped slow it down.
Needless to say it was a bunch of very fortunate events that allowed it to not end in disaster. In any case I would consider it very risky.
You also have to keep in mind, it wasn't just rubber against asphalt, it was rubber on a wheel that spins. I'm not sure if the front nose gear on a 767 has any brakes but even if it did, I can't imagine it would be sufficient at the speeds they were going.
Rubber likely grips much better than metal, however three wheels have massively lower surface area than the body of the plane, or even a small section of it like the head.
Of course we don't land tireless for other reasons (metal transfers heat exceptionally well unlike rubber, paint doesn't survive high speed impact, and it tends to deform upon impact with anything, making any future flights unsafe), but the fastest way to slow down if you don't care about safety or comfort would probably be to land tireless, if you could introduce some rotational spin, that might be faster (more force directed in multiple directions).
Also, on the note of "coefficient of friction", remember that this number is not just some innate property of a molecule - as the metal scratches the pavement and deforms, its coefficient of friction goes up as micro-deformities accrue.
The Gimli Glider was a case of many items of luck lining up.
From "all engine failure is never expected and not covered in training" to "Pearson was an experienced glider pilot familiar with techniques rarely needed in commercial flights" to the amount of maneuvers they had to execute on a barely responding aircraft
Similarly planes are kept 5 nautical miles apart horizontally, and if they get closer than that, you guessed it - investigation. Ofc planes could come within inches and everyone could live, but if we normalize flying within inches, the we are also normalizing zero safety margin, turning small minor inevitable human failings into catastrophe death & destruction. As an example, planes communicate with ATC over the radio and are given explicit instructions - turn left 20 degrees, fly heading 140 etc. From time to time these instructions are misunderstood and have to be corrected. At 5nm separation everyone involved has plenty of time to notice that something was missed/garbled/misinterpreted etc and correct. At 1 inch separation, there's no such time. Any mistake is fatal, even though in theory you are safe when separated by 1 inch.
TBC an investigation doesn't mean investigating the pilots in order to assign blame, it means investigating the entire aviation system that led up to the breach. The pilot's actions / inaction will certainly be part of that, but the goal is to ask, "How could this have been avoided, and ask how every part of the system that we have some control or influence over might have contributed to the outcome"
We should aim for 1 every 10-100 years or something reasonable like that.
Any regulation short of "carry infinite fuel" will be a trade-off, and entail some risk and anyone involved in setting these knows that. Zero may not be our actual target or even possible, but it is a useful aspiration to ensure that everyone is pulling in the right direction.
One of the most important aspects of taking safety seriously is that you do not just investigate things which had an impact, but that you proactively investigate near misses (as was the case here) and even potential incidents.
A plane with 6 minutes of fuel left is always a risk to every person on board and potentially others if an emergency landing becomes the only option.
The investigations into incidents aren't usually particularly long or noteworthy and often the corrective action will be to brief X on dangers of Y, or some manner of bulletin distributed to operators.
Aviation operates on a Swiss cheese model; the idea is that you want many many layers of safety (slices of cheese). Inevitably, every layer will have some holes, but with enough layers, you should still be safe; there won't be a hole that goes all the way through. In this case, they basically got down to their very last slice of cheese; it was just luck that the last layer held.
This should not happen. So what’s there to investigate? How it was allowed to happen, and how to prevent it from happening again.
EDIT: it’s a mayday even earlier than that. It’s a mayday once the pilots know that they WILL land with less than the final reserve.
They landed safely, that is what is important. There is great cost to have extra fuel on board, you need enough, but it doesn't look to me like more was needed. Unless an investigation determines that this emergency would happen often on that route - even then it seems like they should have been told to land in France or someplace long before they got to their intended destination to discover landing was impossible.
6 minutes is way out of the comfort zone. They might not have made it in that case.
So I don't think 220kg is enough to do a go-around in a 737 (well, a go-around would've been initiated with a bit more than 220kg in the tank - they burned some taxing to the gate - but you get my point.) I've read around 2,300kg for takeoff and climb on a normal flight in a 737-8. A go-around is going to use close to that, it's a full power takeoff but a much shorter climb phase up to whatever procedure is set for the airport and then what ATC tells you.
I just flew 172s but even with those little things we were told, your reserve is never to be used.
These people came very, very close to a disaster. Fortunately they had as much luck left as they did fuel.
Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://web.archive.org/web/20230630013840/http://www.boeing...
In the first table they list 2307-2374 kg of fuel for takeoff and climb.
Isn’t a 737-8 the max 8 variant? It uses newer dual CFM LEAP-1B engines. How does it compare? I can’t really find the data. The spec you’re referring to is for the older 737-800.
Another fortune cookie:
https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/wp-content/uploads/aircraf...
It suggests an overall savings of ~14% over the 737-800 but doesn’t look at specific takeoff/climb comparison.
I wasn’t posting the LLM output as a source of truth. I was just using it to question the uncited value. And I still really don’t know the answer. If you’ve got another data source I’d love to get it.
They happen a few hundred times per day at ~100 k flights.
So yes they will do an "investigation". It's not a criminal investigation. It's to understand the circumstances, the choices, the procedures, and the execution that ended with a plane dangerously close to running out of fuel.
This will determine if there were mistakes made, or the reserve formula needs to be adjusted, or both.
Don't tell me about cost, just stop. Let MAGA-Air accept some plane deaths to have cheap fares.
Likewise, I think that the flying public is lead to believe fuel exhaustion is so rare that when airlines are compliant with regulations, no such disasters across all flights across all carriers will occur during your lifetime.
* they're derived from an estimated probability of the event (independently) happening each year. It doesn't mean that it won't happen for n years. The probability is the same every year.
* the probabilities are estimates, trying to predict extreme outliers. Usually from less than 100s of years of data, using sparse records that may have never recorded a single outlier.
* years = 1/annual_probability ends up giving large time spans for small probabilities. It means that uncertainty between 0.00001% and 0.00002% looks "off by 500 years".
https://practical.engineering/blog/2025/9/16/an-engineers-pe...
If you define X the amount of fuel you need after you land.
And you say that X needs to be enough to make an emergency landing.
And we define that the amount of fuel required for an emergency landing should cover the amount required for the landing operation while still having X in the tank when landed.
X > X + landing_cost
The plane already had made 3 failed attempt before and was redirected to two different airports.
I don't remember all of the rules off the top of my head, but if you are ever landing with less than 30 minutes of fuel, something has gone seriously wrong. You are required to take off with sufficient fuel to fly to your destination, hold for a period of time, attempt a landing, fly to your alternate, and land all with 30 minutes remaining. If you are ever in a situation where you may not meet these conditions, you are required to divert immediately. In choosing your alternate, you consider weather conditions along with many other factors. This was, without question, a serious emergency.
From the very brief description in the article, I would say they should have diverted to Manchester at least 25 minutes sooner than they did. I will include the GP's caution, however:
I'd be very wary to get ahead of the investigation and make speculative statements on how this could have happened, the one thing that I know for sure is that it shouldn't have happened, no matter what.
Low fuel happens, but this is (very) exceptional.
If at any point you expect to touch down at the nearest safe airport with less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining, you are required by regulation to make a mayday call.
Mayday is a term enshrined in law. It is only to be used when people will die if you do not receive help. In the US, calling it inappropriately can be punished with up to 10 years in jail and a $250k fine. It's protected in this way because as soon as you call mayday, in many situations there are actions that must be taken by law or regulation. Other appropriate uses include things like "our plane is on fire" or "our wing just fell off and we can't steer the plane".
As soon as you think you can't land with the fuel reserves you are _required_ to call mayday, other pilots are _required_ to clear the radio for you, and ATC is _required_ to provide any and all supported possible until you're on the ground.
The investigation is not to figure out who to send to jail or something. The investigation is because a flight just came this >< close to having hundreds of people die. That fuel is there as a safety margin, yes. That's how everyone ended up walking off this plane instead of dying as the plane was ripped apart by some trees somewhere. That is good.
But air travel did not become as safe as it with an attitude of "this hasn't killed anyone yet, all good". The fact there was an incursion into the safety margin should not be looked at as "eh, working as intended" but "holy hell we just came this close to disaster, what went wrong that almost killed all these people? how do we stop that happening again?". That is what an investigation will be looking to figure out.
To put it in vaguely IT terms, this is something like... your application has started corrupting its database, but you have _a_ backup copy. On one hand, you can think "eh, we have a backup, that's what it's there for, who cares". On the other you can go "holy shit, any time we need to restore from the backup we narrowly averted disaster... how do we make sure we're not in that situation again?". The former is probably going to lead to irrecoverable data loss eventually. The second will have you addressing problems _before_ they ruin you.
From the article, they did issue a mayday call, when the closest airport was presumably Edinburgh. Then they flew to Manchester and landed.
Of course, Manchester is also a Ryanair base. There are two Ryanair bases closer to Prestwick (Edinburgh and Newcastle), but maybe the weather was bad there too? If the fuel situation was so dire, questions might be asked during the investigation why they didn't pick a closer airport with good weather that wasn't a Ryanair base (if one existed), but ultimately it's the pilots' decision to fly a bit further to an airport they are familiar with, and second guessing them with the benefit of hindsight is probably not a good idea...
Personally, I’d still want to figure out why I got shot and work on making sure that didn’t happen again.
Especially if you basically got shot multiple times (for an analogy in this case).
So because the safety margin still worked while down to near vapors we should conclude there's nothing to learn for the future to reduce the risk of similar incidents?
That's certainly... a take.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=4d2256&lat=54.720&lon=-... is the track of this flight.
Went around at EDI at about 19:10Z, landed at about 19:51Z, so about a 41 minute flight.
It may even be the answer is "no, everything went as well as it possibly could have, and adding more reserve fuel to every flight would be unacceptably wasteful, so oh well", but at a minimum they'll probably recommend even more fuel on certain flights into risky weather.
Do you shrug and say, that's why they have a safety factor, everything worked as intended? Or do you say, holy crap, I nearly died, how did this happen?
The purpose of the safety factor is to save you if things go badly wrong. The fact that it did its job doesn't mean things didn't go badly wrong. If you don't address what happened then you no longer have a safety factor.
I think about 30 minutes worth of fuel.
Not knowing their flight plan, it could have been that Edinburgh was the first alternate and Manchester the second alternate.
Might even be 100% done by the book but book needs changing (tho I doubt that, it's not exactly first case of "a lot of bad weather")
Besides regular weather (which airliners aim to avoid except during take off and landing) there are many other factors at play here. There are several almanacs that are used for fuel calculations & navigation, they are updated annually.
The fastest jet stream (the aviation equivalent of the trade winds) recorded is north of 400 Kph, having that with you, against you or perpendicular to your flight path will have a substantial influence on fuel consumption and flight duration.
I agree with you that it may well end up with a regulatory change but that's one of many possible outcomes here. I will definitely keep an eye out for the report on this flight's investigation. It is going to make for very educational reading.
0 minutes?
-1 minutes?
One of the things the reserve is for is if the plane immediately in front of you fucks up the runway, you now have to divert to the next airport. You need at least enough fuel to get there and for the tower to shove everyone else out of the way so you can make an emergency landing.
There are other reasons someone could abort a landing and have to go around again, besides debris in the runway. And sometimes two of them can happen consecutively.
In the case I’m referencing, it was pointed out that p the pilot made things worse by going faster than he was told to fly, using up fuel and also making him too close to a previous plane which forced him to go around the previous time, so it wasn’t all the tower.
This situation sounds a lot less nefarious, but it does also sound like they should have rerouted earlier.
They did reroute earlier. It was 2 failed attempts on Prestwick (Glasgow), 45 minutes in the landing pattern, then they diverted to Edinburgh (15 minute flight), a failed attempt at Edinburgh (~5-10 minutes), and then they diverted to Manchester (45 minute flight) and landed successfully there. Likely they hit their reserve just as the Edinburgh landing failed and decided to fly to Manchester, with clearer skies, rather than risk another failure in their reserve.
IMHO the only questionable pilot decision here is to divert to Edinburgh rather than Manchester immediately. But this is somewhat understandable: first of all, dropping the passengers off at Edinburgh (an hour drive from Glasgow) is significantly less costly and less inconvenient than dropping them at Manchester (an overnight bus ride). Second, if the Edinburgh landing had been successful they would not have eaten into their reserve and no investigation would've been needed. Third, the Monday-morning quarterbacking could've easily gone the other direction if they had diverted to Manchester ("Why did you choose an airport 178 miles away and risk eating into your fuel reserve when Edinburgh was right there?")
[1] https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr3418#3c7f91f4
Yeah, as someone who knows next to nothing about airlines, but has seen these type of decisions in businesses, this was the thing that stood out to me. This is all pure speculation of course, but I'd be curious how clear it was that Edinburgh would also have a high risk of being unsuccessful and whether the pilots felt any pressure to try that anyway. E.g. are there consequences for pilots who cause delays for passengers?
I'd imagine heavily depends on how often that happens vs other pilots on same route. Tho I'd imagine consequences are "here is more training".
There's precedent for this kind of situation to generate quite extensive investigations. An incident in 2017 where a flight from the Isle of Man to Belfast was unable to land in a storm, diverted back to the IOM, then landed in unsafe weather conditions because of insufficient fuel to divert again got a 48 page report[0], safety recommendations, and the airline being banned from the UK.
[0]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82ede440f0b...
That's likely, these places are not very far apart, and weather systems that cause 100mph winds don't tend to be small. And presumably if you have at most one landing attempt remaining you don't want to be taking any more chances.
The decision will have been made based on the forecast weather at Edinburgh prior to the flight (that is used to select a suitable alternate), and the actual reported weather at the time. Both the forecast and actual weather are precisely reported in an aviation weather language ("TAF" and "METAR") and assessed objectively. The investigation will certainly consider if the pilots erred there. Mostly likely the outcome will be that the decision was the correct one given the weather information they had available to them - this is what has been found in similar previous incidents.
when you piece it together like that its a close call and maybe a hindsight but its understandable if pilot do this
Dispatch knows how much fuel they say they put in.
Your flight time, speeds, and profile are known.
ACARS may be reporting fuel use throughout the flight.
etc, etc, etc.
The pilot in charge has to file a writeup.
When someone accepts the writeup, there's a random chance it's selected for followup. If/when they discover there was enough fuel, it will affect the career(s) of person(s) involved.
First, generally, people don't like having to do paperwork, and especially don't like doing paperwork to help you land a little quicker.
While one time may not be a fireable offense, you will find you career affected in the number of ways people can find to be uncooperative with you, or not support you when you attempt to advance your career within the company.
Developing a habit would lead your interlocutors to escalate the situation, which would lead to discipline up to and including the company firing person(s) involved.
Edit: I was recalling articles claiming the company purposely fueling less than other airlines in order to increase their rate of claims for priority landing to have a better "on time" statistics.
This forum post disputes that: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/38501/is-it-tru...
Having attended meetings at ICAO I can also tell you many details of various aviation incidents, including their existence, are covered by some secret classification. This fact being disclosed caused most of the attendees to lose all hope in the rest of the proceedings. To their credit the FAA reps on that occasion were by far the most reasonable gov representatives in the room, and the FAA are one of the major voices pushing for greater transparency on it.
You would have to have secret clearance to know which ones
The whole subject of discussion prior to this was efforts to improve data sharing wrt incidents.
Also, that sort of telemetry does exist for most major airlines, however it goes via satellite to the airline not the ATC.
Korean Air Flight 801 could have used someone 2nd guessing a pilot. They didn't until they were almost dead and then it was too late. Not 2nd guessing the pilot was a really really bad idea.
ATC doesn’t have the kind of situational awareness or manpower to fix these kinds of problems the vast majority of the time. It only seems like they could have done something after the fact when the disaster has already happened and hindsight activates.
Like the GP said, ATC second guessing pilots is a really, really bad idea. A few incidents doesn’t change that.
...yeah, the second pilot. And in this case, also flight engineer.
IIRC The problem was pretty much aside from errors the cultural issues with pilots, the "lower ranks" wouldn't dare to be assertive to seniority and just voiced the issues they saw without doing anything.
[1] In one case someone mixed imperial and metric unix, and instead of $something-kilograms, they put only $something-pounds of fuel.
Those who still do can be grounded and be moved into management or take up a career in politics.
It is a system built out of very regulated parts, very professional people, and tight controls.
Pilots are encouraged to be very forward and proactive about fuel situations because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052
Minimum fuel requirements are calculated as "Time of fuel for cruise to certain points", which is usually good enough, but if an Airport is stupid busy, or has bad wind patterns, just a couple go-arounds will chew through your fuel way faster than the regulation expects.
Turbofan engines are also dramatically less efficient at low altitude than high altitude cruise. So holding at low altitudes because a congested airport is dealing with traffic will chew through your reserves much faster than you expect.
Ryanair flies short hops to congested airports. They will have relatively low reserves, and you should expect them to run into "Hey we are low on fuel" more often than international flights for example.
also worth mentioning that most of the civil aviation regulations and SOPs regarding commercial flights are written in blood.
Locally, this is true. Globally, not so much. I remember my friend's vivid description of a flight taken in Nepal. It was absolutely wild.
It is almost fascinating how humans will stoop to dishonesty even in banal situations - and not just any humans, but pilots, who should be subject to at least some vetting.
Maybe planes should be retrofitted as to transmit their actual fuel state including a qualified assessment in minutes to the ATC. Not just because of the cheaters, but also to warn the ATC in the rare case that some plane crew isn't very assertive about their dwindling fuel, or hasn't noticed the problem.
It would make prioritizing the queue a bit more neutral.
If I designed such a system from scratch, "remaining fuel" would be part of my telemetry.
Careful what you wish for. I'd rather people skip the queue by pretending to be low on fuel than people skip the queue by actually being low on fuel.
Having worked with many US airline pilots over the years, this is also why they are so proud to be unionized. Sure, senior pilots make as much as some FAANG developers, but the union is also there so that management doesn't get bright ideas about things like cutting fuel reserves to cut costs without the union telling them to stuff it.
And if you don't think the airlines would love to lobby Congress about the regulatory backstop, well . . .
The main reason why airlines would like to take the least amount of fuel is because it immediately increases payload capacity and thus flight efficiency. This being a cut-throat market there is a serious incentive to cut it as fine as possible. So the regulations around this particular issue are incredibly strict: you have to have a certain amount of fuel left upon landing, you have to write up truthfully how much you still had left and you will be investigated without fail if you cut into the reserve. The good thing about unions here is that they help to make sure that pilots know they are safe reporting truthfully because the airlines can not retaliate if they would pressure the pilot to not report an incident (which all pilots would normally definitely do). So they're a factor, but it is the regulator that writes the rules here and they are super strict about this.
And that's immediately why the calculation of the estimate becomes so important: you now have 30 minutes (or 45, depending) of deadweight + the deadweight for two alternates and an x amount of time in a holding pattern, plus up to three go-arounds. That really adds up, so you have to do your best to get the calculation as close as possible to what it will be in practice without ever cutting into that reserve.
It took me the better part of a year and massive amount of learning to write a small amount of code + associated tests to pass certification. It also taught me more about software engineering (as opposed to development) than anything I did up to that point in time and it made me very wary about our normal software development practices.
Like, I'm definitively not an engineer, nor does my day job really involve engineering, yet my title contains Engineer! I'm a proud CRUD monkey and designer.
I have done engineering work previously when developing hardware, and it's really a different mindset (even in an agile & fast-moving engineering org). Safety, cost, reliability, multidisciplinary integration, etc. just don't really come up in a lot in web and app development (which is a wonderful thing, really—I love it!)
> I wonder if there would be any value in teaching an "engineering when lives are on the line" or "war stories from accident investigations" classes to new engineers.
There would be immense value in that. But who is going to pay for it? It's a course that will essentially cause your crew to start producing software at 1/10th the rate they would otherwise do.
You'd think, but individual humans are very very bad at estimating risk, and in toxic group and work situations, humans will often take on increased personal risk rather than risk conflict. I.e., they will value group conformity over their own safety ... especially if their paycheck is involved. Fear of death is not nearly as powerful as robust regulation and unions.
Of course the pilots are the backstop, and the unions are theirs, so they can make necessary calls the money doesn't like.
Same thing happens with Professional Engineers regardless of whether they are employed or work as independent consultants/firms. They’re legally responsible for the bridges and other infrastructure they sign off on with laws protecting them from employers and clients.
(I fully support the ALPA and other unions, I just don’t think it plays as significant a role in following regulations as you claim)
It takes people with ideas and a willingness to put pressure in the right places to be sure that sane policies prevail.
I think it's pretty obvious that as time moves forward, we need to rely on "regulations" less. The root and history of the word in the political context is to make things regular. But state actions increasingly bring irregularity to the world.
It seems absolutely fair to say that, in this situation, the people - the pilots in particular, but also cabin crews, ATCs, engineers, and their unions, are the backstop worth observing and celebrating.
> It seems absolutely fair to say that, in this situation, the people - the pilots in particular, but also cabin crews, ATCs, engineers, and their unions, are the backstop worth observing and celebrating.
I will hold off on that conclusion until the report is in. There are so many possible root causes here that speculation is completely useless, and celebrations would be premature.
That's a funny way to phrase it. I'd probably go the other way and say "sure, FAANG developers make as much as some pilots..."
Those pilots have hundreds of lives on the line every day.
Just watch Juan Browne, he usually turns out pretty good in analyzing the mishaps. He didn’t upload anything for Manchester yet but will probably soon: https://youtube.com/@blancolirio
I guess they're trying it again now that the whole thing had blown over.
You hear that a lot, with Ryanair stories.
Sounds like a great airline!
isn't this 99 percent of modern infotainment "journalism" though? making speculative statements, omitting and lying..
Does the estimation change depending on weather forecast, season of the year etc?
> Does the estimation change depending on weather forecast, season of the year etc?
Yes. There are many factors that go into this including trade winds (which vary quite a bit seasonally and which can make a huge difference), time of day, altitude of the various legs, route flown, weather, distance to alternates, altitude of the place of departure and altitude of the place where you are landing, weight of the aircraft, engine type, engine hours since last overhaul, weight of passengers, luggage and cargo, angle-of-attack and so on. The software I wrote was a couple of thousand lines just to output a single number and 10x as much code for tests, and it was just one module in a much larger pre-flight application.
This made me think about the fuel itself: is aviation fuel globally standardised and the same quality in every single airport in the world?
There are three different kinds of jet fuel and all are produced to strict standards, and then there are allowances for ppm water contamination (very low, to ensure the fuel system will never freeze at altitude or in freezing weather on the ground or at lower altitude).
>Ryanair
I wouldn't be so wary.
All I had to contribute was to ask if they were trying to hypermile or something?
The argument in favor is simply that we need in air refueling for the military, but justifying all that expenditure is a lot easier if it's dual use technology.
Your reserve fuel (the "extra" fuel over what the actual flight burn) can of course be used (hello, that's what it's there for) but—and here's the rub—you can never plan on using it.
That is to say, in this case, when they missed their first or second approach, they CANNOT say, "We'll use our reserve fuel and make another go at it" because that would be intentionally planning to burn your reserve.
You may only dip into your reserve when you have no other choice. In this case, when the only fuel they had left was reserve, they are obligated by law to proceed to the alternate airport, which clearly they did not do [correction: they did do the proper thing; see my 2nd reply below]. No bueno.
[this is a slight simplification (minor details omitted for brevity) but the kernel of the issue is properly described]
EDIT and you of most of the commenters here, with your industry background, are better placed to offer an opinion!
For me, it was. I have trouble forming a mental model of itineraries so I’m grateful for the summary.
Presenting information in different ways is useful (and the method of display can offer informational insights itself). And for different users it might help parse larger connections. And by using the LLM to summarize just that one facet of the problem (itinerary and sequence) and sharing it here, they’ve contributed in a meaningful way. It may not have warranted a response. But it added to overall understanding of the problem space to help facilitate discussion. And they did well enough by citing that the info came from an LLM. They didn’t bypass the intent of the site. They added to it and fell right in line with that intent.
I had no issue with the contribution itself, the route summary is helpful.
> And they did well enough by citing that the info came from an LLM.
In terms of acknowledging AI contribution, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Here it's sidetracked a discussion; but transparency is better than otherwise I suppose. Perhaps it just boils down to taste - and I don't like it.
Anyway, you made me think!
But yes, in a perfectly meta way, I think we’ve both thought more about the nature and design of web comments and information and the implications of LLM-assisted chat ‘augmentation’. (All those AI summaries forced upon us in every site is probably the worse implementation of this!)
Even though I’ve read the entire article, I found it very difficult to mentally visualize and ended up not noticing that there were three destination airports involved.
Not necessarily. And I get that you've caveated yourself with an edit and a reply etc, but lets assume that you're not hedging for the moment.
They carried required reserves on departure. Multiple approaches thwarted by extreme unforseen weather. They declared Mayday Fuel, which is mandatory under EASA regulations, when reserve fuel use became unnavoidable. They diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Landing with 220kg is close, but within bounds of a declared fuel emergency.
Crew decision to declare Mayday and divert was proper airmanship, not negligence.
Yes, reserve fuel may not be planned for. But it may be used. It's there for a reason. Your accusation doesn't account for dynamic evolving weather and realtime decision making.
I'm an instrument rated pilot and an advanced ground instructor under FAA and I fly IMC in bad weather as single pilot IFR around the pacific northwest and colorado.
Was this good/bad? Idk Room for improvement? Maybe? Clearer direction with the benefit of hindsight? Maybe. but the majority of the sentiment in the responses is coming from people not type rated in a 737.
(Source: am airline captain)
Is that what happened? That's not in the article, what's the source?
And other comments here are saying the third attempt was in Edinburgh, so they were already trying to land anywhere possible by the third attempt.
At what point are you saying they chose to plan on using reserves when they still had any option for landing without reserves?
In off-roading, we have a similar rule with 4 wheel drive. You don't use it to go in, you use it to get out.
Pilots may be organizationally disincentivized when making this decision.
An oversight I'm sure they can fix ;-)
FAA as a yardstick? Hm
What a nerve wracking experience for those pilots. I wonder if on the final attempt they knew they had to force it down no matter what.
If there's considered to be a mistake here though, I'm guessing it's going to be spending too long before committing to the initial diversion.
Without knowing the weather they were seeing at the time, seems hard to say if they should have gone for a closer 2nd alternate than Manchester.
He was low in fuel and also frustrated with Kennedy ATC because he declared "minimum fuel" earlier and was still getting vectored around. (I know "minimum fuel" is not an emergency and has a very precise meaning).
They must have been very close to running out. But it was a valuable lesson learned in speaking up before you get to that point.
JFK ATC in particular has an enormous workload with many international flights, combined with direct, even conflictual at times, NY communication style. It puts the onus on the pilot for conveying the message to ATC, rather than ATC for extracting the message from the pilot.
For comparison, this is what can happen when the pilots are not that assertive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052
I'm not sure it was a lesson learned per-se because the captain was merely doing his job as fundamentally defined.
A captain has ultimate responsibility for the aircraft.
However there is a side question in relation to your post...
When you say "declared an emergency" in your post, the more interesting question would be whether it was actually formally declared by the captain (i.e. "MAYDAY") or whether the captain was merely "working with" ATC at a lower level, maybe "PAN" or maybe just informal "prioritised".
If the captain DID declare "MAYDAY" earlier in the timeframe then yes, Kennedy would have a lot to answer for if they were spending excessive time vectoring around.
But if the captain did not formally declare and then came back later and started bossing Kennedy around, that would be a different set of questions, focused on the captain.
In fact, it doesn’t even need to be the pilots who declare an emergency https://hsi.arc.nasa.gov/flightcognition/Publications/non_EA...
That may be so in the US.
But it is a bad habit to pick up.
Especially if you are an airline pilot and you frequently fly to destinations where English is not the first language.
Or indeed in US airspace where you frequently get international carriers flying in and out.
There is a reason why there is internationally agreed standard phraseology for radio communications.
Everyone learns MAYDAY/PAN and the associated expectations around it (e.g. radio silence etc. etc.)
Not everybody will be able to adequately follow along if you have a long drawn-out waffle discussion over the radio ... "we have a little problem" ... "do you want to declare?" ... "oh wait, standby ...." ...."oh, we're ok for now" ... "oh actually maybe this or that"... yada yada yada.
If its truly an emergency then cut the crap and use the standard phraseology and keep the communications terse.
[1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F... is the US rule, EASA has a similar rule.
Either this is true, or this is why there’s a 45 minute reserve requirement. There were three failed landing attempts in two airports prior to the successful landing, and they spent almost as much time attempting to land as the scheduled flight took.
Seems like this was exactly the scenario it was designed for?
But I'm truly surprised (in a bad way) people on the ground couldn't solve the situation earlier. The plane was in an emergency situation for hours, wtf.
Also, the airport density in the UK is high, they should have been diverted since before the first attempt, as it has happened to me and thousands of flights every single day around the world.
Edit: there might also be part of Ryanair culture that contributed, but that's speculation.
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/RYR3418/history/2025...
They had at least an extra hour of fuel, and they landed at the third airport they tried.
This is fairly common in GA and there are cases where it has happened in scheduled flights as well. That's why fuel sampling is common practice.
For reference, passenger airlines immediately declare emergency if their planned flight path would put them under 30 minutes of fuel (at least in the US). Landing with 5 minutes remaining of fuel is very atypical
I can wait for the Pete the Irish Pilot’s take though.
https://avherald.com/h?article=52dfe5d7&opt=0
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1nzet3a/flight_a_...
Quoted:
Incident: Malta Air B738 at Prestwick, Edinburgh and Manchester on Oct 3rd 2025, landed below minimum fuel By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Oct 5th 2025 14:39Z, last updated Friday, Oct 10th 2025 15:02Z
A Malta Air Boeing 737-800 on behalf of Ryanair, registration 9H-QBD performing flight FR-3418 from Pisa (Italy) to Prestwick,SC (UK), was on final approach to Prestwick's runway 20 when the crew went around due to weather. The aircraft entered a hold, then attempted a second approach to runway 20 about 30 minutes after the go around, but again needed to go around. The aircraft again entered a hold, about 10 minutes after entering the hold the crew decided to divert to Edinburgh,SC (UK) where the aircraft joined the final approach to runway 24 about one hour after the first go around but again went around. The aircraft subsequently diverted to Manchester,EN (UK) where the aircraft landed on runway 23R about 110 minutes after the first go around.
On Oct 5th 2025 The Aviation Herald received information that the aircraft landed below minimum fuel with just 220kg fuel (total, 100kg in left and 120 kg in right tank) remaining.
The aircraft returned to service about 13 hours after landing.
On Oct 10th 2025 the AAIB reported the occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated.
A passenger reported after the first go around at Prestwick the crew announced, they would do another attempt to land at Prestwick, then divert to Manchester. Following the second go around the crew however announced they were now diverting to Edinburgh, only after the failed approach to Edinburgh the crew diverted to Manchester.
Maybe I'm just unaware, but it's crazy to me that these planes burn 40 kilograms of jet fuel per minute.
An airplane burns 40 liters to travel 15 kilometers too (900 kph), but carries 160 people.
That’s about 40x more than the car, so the fuel economy per passenger is about the same.
Of course jet fuel is probably a bit more polluting, but it’s still interesting how close it is.
For a medium-range flight (say ~2000 mi / 3200 km) each passenger incurs somewhat more than their own weight in fuel.
Even for a long-range aircraft like the A350-900, with an MTOW of 280,000 kg and a fuel capacity of approximately 138,000 litres (roughly 111,000 kg at 0.804 kg/L), fuel represents about 40% of the take-off weight. The OEW is approximately 155,000 kg, meaning even a completely empty plane (except for crew) loaded with maximum fuel still wouldn't reach your claimed 50% fuel fraction.
I don't fly any more.
Because the market responds to your behavior by slightly lowering the cost of flying to fill those seats, demand increases to match from slightly lower income people. Because they then organize their lives slightly more around cheap flights, it gets even harder to lower the impact of flying.
Paradoxically, rich people like us (you're a tech worker too...) flying more, because we're less sensitive to price, leave more room for pricing in carbon reduction strategies in the tickets/taxes. If you have more seats from the lower end of the market... you don't have as much flexibility in solutions.
Taxes are one way to make markets internalise externalities.
(Of course, subsidies probably throw a wrench in all of this.)
that is politically driven and has nothing to do with whether rich or poor bums are on seats.
Is a plug in hybrid or EV less polluting if you don’t have rooftop solar?
edit: I think I know the general answer, but I’m splitting hairs comparing a replacement car for an ICE vehicle that I have.
Here in Scotland, we have an EV electricity tariff that give us low rates between 00:30 - 05:30 while the wind turbines spin and demand is low, and our plug-in hybrid is programmed to charge during those hours. (We also run the dishwasher, washing machine, and tumble dryer on time delay during those hours as much as possible)
With nearly all of our car trips being local, the ~25 mile electric range the plug-in hybrid is rarely exceeded. We fill the petrol tank maybe once every 3 or 4 months, or when we're on a road trip.
Pure EVs are harder to justify in the UK currently unless you do basically all of your charging at home, because with 20% VAT added to the price of electricity from public chargers, and too-low fuel taxes, the per-mile cost is similar to—or sometimes more expensive than—driving on petrol. It's shockingly bad public policy.
Grids are getting lower carbon intensity every year, so it just gets better after that.
It's also not clear that rooftop solar is better than anything else, the carbon involved in getting it to you, installing it, the business that does the installation… It's not very efficient.
Non-Domestic flight passengers: 14,124,617 [1] Domestic flight passengers: 1,455,330 [2]
So you can see that over 90% of all passengers do not fly domestically within the UK. So only the domestic flights emit more CO2 than combustion engine cars, but they are the minority. If you were to look at the US, flights that short probably play even less of a role due to longer distances between cities in the US (in comparison to the UK).
In conclusion the data you provided very much proves my point so thank you for providing the source for my statement yourself.
[1] https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/10276/b2eedadb-6813... [2] https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/10276/b2eedadb-6813...
40kg/minute is around 12 gallons (47 liters) of fuel per minute. Meanwhile a 777 burns around 42 gallons (160 liters) per minute. A 747 burns 63 gallons (240 liters) per minute - more than a gallon per second!
Web searches suggest a 737-800 gets about 0.5mpg at cruise. With 189 passengers in a one-class layout that’s 95mpg per passenger. With 162 in a two-class layout that’s 81mpg per passenger.
This is better than a single person in a car but four people in a Prius gets 50mpg * 4 = 200 mpg.
An overnight trip that's automated could go at 40 mph and get seriously good gas mileage. I mean man with four people would probably get almost 100 miles per gallon.
And this would eliminate a lot of short-range flights
It should be a lot easier to implement than having to worry about a whole class of problems that robo taxis in cities have
The robo taxi links the last few miles to transit.
I recently travelled from my house in Seattle to my office in SF without ever getting in a car. I walked more in the airport than I did anywhere else.
Home -> Walk 11 min -> Metro Bus -> light rail -> SEA -> SF -> BART -> Walk 2 min to Hotel.
Next time I go down I’m going to take Amtrak. I couldn’t this time because it was full. In 2024 360,000 people rode that route on 730 trips for an average of about 500 people per trip. Looks like Amtrak gets between 0.6 and 2mpg. That’s 300mpg to 1000mpg per person which is better than a Prius’ 200mpg at 40mph.
Seattle to SF is 1019 miles. At 40mph that’s 25 hours, which is an hour slower than the Amtrak schedule.
Trains are far more efficient than cars, especially at scale.
I like the idea, rural life excepted, but hard to imagine sprawl will ever be replaced.
Light rail, busses, and robotaxis cover sprawl.
Or divide the total by the number of passengers (~189) flying to consider effective fuel economy (per passenger) or 13 kg/pax/h or 3.6 g/pax/s.
They must plan to never land with less than 30 minutes of fuel, or about 1.25 t, and I'd say they should never, ever land with less than 15 minutes in their career during a pan/mayday bingo fuel emergency.
That is going to vary considerably between cruising and ascending.
https://avherald.com/h?article=454af355
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/exclusi...
These were not definitive but it did raise concerns due to the budget nature of the airline.
It was a particularly stormy weekend and it turns out from the article that they had 992kg of fuel left:
https://avherald.com/h?article=489d4c3f
Massive respect for pilots and the job they do.
Fortunately, the flight left with extra fuel, because it was cheaper to carry excess from the origin airport than to buy it at the destination airport, so reserve fuel wasn't needed, but it was close. Also, there was lots of lightning.
I've been on a couple of flights like that. Once where we did two attempts and landed on the 2nd, the other where we did 3 but the had to divert. Other planes were just managing to land in the winds before and after our attempts.
The other problem is (as I found out on that flight) that mass diversions are not good. The airport I diverted to in the UK had dozens of unexpected arrivals, late at night. There wasn't the ground staff to manage this so it took forever to get people off. It then was too full to accept any more landings, so further flights had to get diverted further and further away.
So, if you did a blanket must divert you'd end up with all the diversion airports full (even to flights that could have landed at their original airport) and a much more dangerous situation as your diversions are now in different countries.
It's a often good working gamble that you will pick a short period of weather that is within your operational limits.
Commercial pilots don't have "personal limits". It's defined by their airplane and/or companies constraints.
Great edutainment if you're feeling in the mood for that. If you're inpatient you can skip to 14 minutes, before that it's just backstory.
> After three failed attempts to touch down, the pilots of Ryanair flight FR3418 issued a mayday emergency call and raced to Manchester, where the weather was calmer.
#1 - if Prestwick had wind speeds up to 100mph, then why the h*ll was the airport not closed down?
#2 - if the pilots had experienced conditions that dire during their first two landing attempts at Prestwick, then why the h*ll did they stick around for a third attempt?
EDIT: The article's a big vague, but it seems to have been 2 attempts at Prestwick, then 1 at Edinburgh, then the last-minute "oops, do I really want to die today?" decision to run to Manchester.
We definitely involve the dispatcher in the diversion decision. Especially if it's an unplanned diversion, where the big-picture view the dispatcher has is very useful for us in our metal tube.
I myself went from Bangalore to Delhi a couple of weeks back, and the poor pilots told the air hostesses at least twice or thrice to prepare for landing but the plane did not land until much much later.
For instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951
This happened at landing speed (the airport is only a few hundred meters from the crash site) and the plane was at the end of its flight from Turkey, it did not catch fire. Still, 9 people perished and the remainder were all but one injured 11 of them seriously.
This[1] kind of crash landing is very rare (in that case there was no fire despite being immediately after take off, perhaps because of the cold). Normally an outcome like this is only reasonable to expect if you actually reach a runway despite being out of fuel. Like Gimli[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_System_F...
The flight couldn’t land in 3 other airports and eventually declared emergency.
A US gallon of Kerosene weights approx 6.5 lbs
Further, with the baggage being there in easy reach under the seat, I reckon people would be more tempted to take it with them when evacuating.
That they're are a safe airline seems to be incredible luck - they have all the components for it not to be.
My wife has been using my car, which is a Diesel Golf with a fuel capacity of 14.5 gallons. We set off driving one Saturday to visit my parents, and I noticed the fuel gauge was below empty already. By the time I got to the gas station, I put 14.3 gallons of fuel into it. I calculated that that works out to be about a cup and a half of fuel.
So once you hit empty on my car, you definitely have a ways you can drive still. I feel comfortable driving about 30+ miles, and it's never died on me. That puts it at no more than 1 gallon of fuel left in the car based on my experience (not scientific I know, but I've owned 2 of these cars, with about 190k total driven miles). It's a lot less than 10 liters from E to Dead on the roadside.
* enough reserve to waste some in traffic. On top of that * enough reserve to find gas station. On top of that * enough reserve to drive to neighbouring city for gas station. On top of that * enough to cruise 30 minutes around that neighbouring city looking for other gas station in case the previous ones were closed. On top of that * enough station to run around parking lot looking for space to park
Actually, in a quick check it seems the total fatality count for RyanAir is zero, with only two (on-fatal) major incidents (2008, 2021). That's seems a pretty good track record considering the amount of flights they do.
Maybe in the US, but this story is based in Europe, each country maintains a regulated standard and there are no EU wide disruptions that have ever happened to the best of my knowledge. Also Ryanair don't travel transatlantic flights.
Investigation is ongoing and many factors are at play (bad weather, extra work for ATC due to that, confusing lighting of runways etc) but also, from French media reports, there used to be 15 people per shift 5y ago in Nice ATC, now there are just 12, and traffic is higher.
Many people left the profession during Covid and haven't been replaced.
15 down to 12 in 5 years with more traffic is not out of the question with advancements in technology but of course, if there is a report that shows understaffing then absolutely it should be addressed straight away and it will be, by the French government.
They make outrageous claims for publicity, and their customer experience is all about hidden extras and "gotcha" pricing, but I don't think they fuck around when it comes to safety.
They know that with their reputation they would be sunk if they did have a major incident.
https://www.eurocockpit.eu/news/mayday-mayday-wins-over-ryan...
> In 2012 and 2013 “Brandpunt Reporter” broadcasted a two episode TV investigation in which Ryanair pilots, speaking anonymously, raised concerns about the airline’s fuel policies and company culture. The pilots revealed that the company may be exerting pressure on them to minimize the amount of fuel they take on board – a practice which limits significantly the fuel costs for the company but could jeopardise safety in certain circumstances. The direct reasons for this broadcast were 3 emergency landings of Ryanair aircraft in Valencia Spain on the 26 July 2012, within a short timeframe due to low fuel levels.
I am just a PPL, and that was not an easy thing to accomplish (most pilots complete 50% more hours than required before they are able to pass that test), but my impression is that western training standards for commercial pilots are incredibly high, and the safety record seems to back that up.
The EU has shown us that you can safely have far fewer hours.
As a pilot I do think that nothing replaces butt in seat, but I also think that 1500 hours of instructing/aerial surveying/hour building is well into the diminished marginal returns area.
Either Edinburgh (on the east coast) or Prestwick (on the west coast) are ok (one or the other or both) but in this case neither was suitable so the nearest was Manchester - definitely an edge-case.
I don't know how much fuel they had, or if they could've fitted any more on the plane but it was unusual circumstances.
There was a military plane right behind it with the same issue that night too.
Waiting on full flight in Europe, good airport, for take off. Pilot says over speaker : " We are delayed becuase FUEL guy got UPSET on tarmac and has QUIT. We know need someone ELSE to fill the plane with FUEL. " Said in a COMPLETELY nonchalant voice.
Immediately I get concerned, try not to think what cause a FUEL TECH to QUIT regarding THIS PLANE and fuel issue. Just close my eyes, relax.
2 minutes later pilot comes on intercom again "For some WEIRD reason, someone wants to get off the plane. Now we have to wait for ground crew to find his suitcasebecause of rules. How annoying.."
Plane waits for an hour on tarmac for BOTH passenger to get off and for FUEL to be finally "resolved".
Arrive eventually at destination.
Most of the trouble would have been avoided if the pilot had not sounded nonchalant about a "NON ISSUE about FUEL that a technician just QUIT OVER". I swear i even rememebr saying the statement with a hint of humour, like what on earth is the problem.
This is a true story, and the fact this incompetence happened to me, well I wouldnt have believed it otherwise.
Fuel misunderstandings have resulted in numerous serious incidents, try googling it bro