Hush hush! Don't tell - reported Easyjet Incident

[Boac]

Avherald http://avherald.com/h?article=492a6caf&opt=0 carry a story of a (UK Registered) Easyjet that would appear to have made some very strange decisions on arrival at Naples from Milan, resulting in a 'non-normal' diversion to Bari reportedly landing pretty short of fuel. Naples R24 is a 'long' fuel hungry procedure, particularly for a go-round.

I have no more details, but what is odd is that there is very little other exposure 'in public' of the incident, which appears to be very serious.

[Ex-Ascot]

Boac, yes two approaches and a diversion which is of course legal and you will be landing on minimums. OK if you say that this particular procedure there is lengthy perhaps they did land on fumes. I have been spoken to many times for loading more than flight plan fuel. Don't care. Never been embarrassed.

[Boac]

Did you note the "20 minutes" in the NAP g/a procedure? Quite a long time at low level. I would be very reluctant to fly a second approach off R24 at NAP without lots of 'extra' fuel.

I suspect words are being had.

[stuart]

I'm not at all qualified to comment but isn't this in their business plan to save money flying around on the minimum fuel uptake ? seems very unprofessional to me and considering the number of flights they operate, oh well they're the experts.

[Boac]

'Minimum' fuel is not a problem - it is, after all, the Captain's responsibility IN LAW to determine that 'minimum' and to manage the fuel once loaded. There are 'means' for Captains to make a reasonable increase in uplifted fuel without incurring swinging axes and nasty big rotating saws at HQ. Part of the problem stems from the age-old practice of 'adding a bit for mum' REGARDLESS of weather, ATC, whatever, sometimes relatively large amounts too, which one nearly always landed with still in the tanks. I saw it as an F/O several times.

The 'fuel management' involves diverting at the right fuel state too!

Love to know what the tanks figure was at Bari

[Ex-Ascot]

Boac, yes I agree but what do their SOPs say? Personally given all the facts I would have only given it one shot and then diverted. Must admit I gave it three shots once. Mainly because my F/O was inept so I took over.

Stuart, the problem is penny pinching. with big jets any tankered fuel can cost up to 10% burn of the extra fuel. When you are charging pax to use the loo this is significant. Perhaps they should have loos that open up out over the sky. That would reduce weight.

[Boac]

What do they say about 'rules'? Nothing wrong with '3 shots' if you have the fuel (although the 'accepted' norm is 2) but 2 may not be the right answer! I varied between 'minimum' fuel and extra frequently depending on circumstances. I had no problem with 'minimum' if the conditions were right. I am fairly convinced that the 'bit extra' was always used to give 'thinking time', when as we all know the secret of successful aviation is to be AHEAD of the situation whenever you can be, rather than waiting until your arse is bitten, and then using that 'extra' to cover the problem.

[Ex-Ascot]

On Royal and VVIP long haul I just told them to fill it up half way up the windows. If your principal was late in order to make doors time you sometimes had to shove it up to .93. That hooved the gas. In that case HMQ paid so no probs. The airline did care however.

[Boac]

Very few civilian pilots have that luxury. My 'corporate customers' a while back were more than content to let me 'fill' the ship if I felt the need, but there are few jobs in the real world like that. I would guess your 'transition' to Monarch fuel policy was a bit of a challenge

[Ex-Ascot]

Yep!

[Boac]

This 'incident' is still only covered properly on Av Herald as far as I can see - considering the internet-wide storm that erupted when a few Ryanairs messed up their diversion decisions around Madrid a while back...........?

[MoreAviation]

This 'incident' is still only covered properly on Av Herald as far as I can see - considering the internet-wide storm that erupted when a few Ryanairs messed up their diversion decisions around Madrid a while back...........?

Which airline's management is more litigious, Ryanair or EasyJet...?

[Boac]

TOP got a 'roasting' from Ry's lawyers due to stupid posters, and 'knuckled under'. I cannot see EasyJet getting too huffy as long as reporting is kept factual.

[Boac]

It has now appeared on FlightGlobal https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italians-probe-diverted-easyjet-a319s-low-fuel-land-421056/

[MoreAviation]

All credit to Avherald, they often get to these newsworthy stories well before the other news outlets. Will be interesting to see how EasyJet responds to this one. Will they hang the crew out to dry I wonder...?

[Boac]

Well, we do not know the detail of the trip of course, but the METARS posted on Av Herald would make me think more than twice about a second ILS onto R24 - a high DA and required vis. Luckily the METARS for Bari were good, although it was night-time.

[Ex-Ascot]

What is the DA and what CAT is the ILS?

[MoreAviation]

Naples Capodichino Approach Charts

ILS24 Cat 1

[Ex-Ascot]

Thanks MA I don't think that I have ever been in there, maybe. I see the problem. Like under those conditions load more gas! Flight plan computers should allow for lengthy go arounds. Company ops manuals should brief crews on extra gas for places like this. Or I suppose pre-flight glance at the approach plate would have helped with fuel planning.

[Boac]

NAP is very much a 'routine' destination for most airlines that do European routes. It has its problems (like it is in Italy....) - Vesuvius, Stray dogs on the runway (No - NOT 'PUPPIES' ) performance issues, R06 approach is more challenging (big mast), etc etc, but 'known' and briefed and planned............