Allegiant Air has low fuel emergency... Or - did they?

MassPilot said:
I understand that but they claimed that they didn't even have enough fuel to safely hold for 20 minutes. If that's true, I would think that is cutting it pretty close.
Click to expand...

It's worse than cutting it close. It's a violation of 14 CFR 91.167(a)(3).
 
MAKG1 said:
It's worse than cutting it close. It's a violation of 14 CFR 91.167(a)(3).
Click to expand...

It's not a violation to burn into your reserve. I'll be willing to bet that the flight was planned with the legally required reserve fuel. Now what happened after that - I don't know.
 
kayoh190 said:
It's not a violation to burn into your reserve. I'll be willing to bet that the flight was planned with the legally required reserve fuel. Now what happened after that - I don't know.
Click to expand...

Holding for 20 minutes into your 45 minute reserve would not be a violation.

Not carrying enough in the first place so that a 20 minute hold isn't possible is another story.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's worse than cutting it close. It's a violation of 14 CFR 91.167(a)(3).
Click to expand...

Well, then it wouldn't preclude him from declaring against the hold on account of preserving the reserve. Under your interpretation, he can declare if that 20 minute hold eats into his 45 minute reserve.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not carrying enough in the first place so that a 20 minute hold isn't possible is another story.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. I'll bet the release was legal. There's a reason airlines don't dispatch right at the FAA mins, and the VP of Flight Ops was a huge proponent of getting the release fuel as close to the gnat's ass as possible. This is the karma the pilot group is talking about.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You'd be surprised. I've been in some pretty nasty stuff in the Arabian Gulf. It's no kiddie pool.
Click to expand...

There are few places in the world with more than 10 miles of fetch that won't put you in some nasty stuff every now and then.
 
Henning said:
There are few places in the world with more than 10 miles of fetch that won't put you in some nasty stuff every now and then.
Click to expand...
Exactly. When you get the winds coming out of Iraq and blowing south down the length of the Gulf, it gets rather sporty. Not quite Roaring 40's sporty, but unpleasant nonetheless.
 
I can't take credit for this, but found it on the APC board. Too funny not to share:

There was a VP had a plane and Bingo was his fuel-o! B-I-N-G-O!
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. When you get the winds coming out of Iraq and blowing south down the length of the Gulf, it gets rather sporty. Not quite Roaring 40's sporty, but unpleasant nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Short choppy seas are always the most unpleasant, especially pounding into them...ugh.
 
Henning said:
Short choppy seas are always the most unpleasant, especially pounding into them...ugh.
Click to expand...

GOM, short choppy seas from three different directions = one ugly crewboat ride with everyone sharing breakfast, post consumption :eek:
 
Ive been cattle on a couple flights in the last 2 years where we had to divert for fuel due to T-storms over ATL. Those delays were initially announced as 10-20 min. Not long after that we start heading to JAX or maybe it was BHM to land, get fuel and take off again. So it wasn't like we had to sit on the ground for an hour while the TS moves over ATL. Apparently that's how close WN likes to fly now.

So I could see Capt VP being close to running low if he had to wait 20min. It shouldn't happen but occasionally seems to.
 
Clark1961 said:
GOM, short choppy seas from three different directions = one ugly crewboat ride with everyone sharing breakfast, post consumption :eek:
Click to expand...
Closest I've come to death at sea was in the GOMEX.

And a large reason why I'm not a huge fan of the Coast Guard.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You'd be surprised. I've been in some pretty nasty stuff in the Arabian Gulf. It's no kiddie pool.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to the Arabian Gulf, I was referring to Henning's dislike of the desert.... takes a pretty stiff wind to rock a boat sitting in sand.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I wasn't referring to the Arabian Gulf, I was referring to Henning's dislike of the desert.... takes a pretty stiff wind to rock a boat sitting in sand.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

The stiff wind is like being in a convection oven.
 
"... the pilot meant he had less than 20 minutes before dipping into the 45-minute reserve."
 
Stingray Don said:
We now know who was at the controls, and they were corporate executives.

Vice president of flight operations Greg Baden and director of flight safety Michael Wuerger were at the controls of the July 23 flight with 144 passengers on board, the airline said.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alleg...ng-plane-ran-low-fuel-170357026--finance.html
Click to expand...

Woohoo. This just took a funny turn. Management at the controls, low fuel emer, interrupting a NOTAMed closure. I think someone's going to get a free ride with an examiner at the very least.
 
docmirror said:
Woohoo. This just took a funny turn. Management at the controls, low fuel emer, interrupting a NOTAMed closure. I think someone's going to get a free ride with an examiner at the very least.
Click to expand...

It may very well be the dispatcher.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Here is the tower recording:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kfar/KFAR-Twr-Jul-23-2015-1730Z.mp3

Starts around 12:41

After the initial exchange with Tower where he says he'll 'have to declare an emergency' if the company isn't able to work it out there isn't anything else. Some very faint transmissions that I can't make out - maybe bleed over from another freq? You don't hear from 426 again until around the 26 minute mark when he checks in on the visual for 18 and Tower clears him to land.

SO....either the recording is incomplete, or they went back to Center to declare and then were vectored back for the approach.
Click to expand...

Attached is a recording where they check on with Approach. This excerpt begins at about 17:49:30z, which is about five minutes after their first conversation with Tower ends. It sounds like there may have been some mention of an emergency declaration, but it's not really clear on the recording. The timing of their check-in with Approach leads me to believe that Center was working them at the time of their previous conversation with Tower.
 

Attachments

  • Approach Conversation.mp3
    810.9 KB · Views: 3
flibmeister said:
Aair show waivers (including practices) are approved in conjunction with FAA Order 8900.1, under some basic rules and conditions. Among them is this one:

b) If a scheduled air carrier serves an airport that is the site of an aviation event, arrangements must be made for the arrival and departure of such aircraft. It is usually adequate to schedule a break in the activities to allow for scheduled arrivals and departures. The event organizer should complete prior coordination with the air carrier and ATC.


A phone call to the air boss with the ETA of the air carrier would have resolved the problem-- he'd have simply adapted the show schedule to accomodate the air carrier arrival. This was a non-problem that someone out of the loop turned into one.
Click to expand...

In their first conversation with Tower, they said someone from their airline had been trying to get the tower manager on the phone without success. Tower gave them a number to try, but according to what the pilot said, at that point they were only three or four minutes away from bingo fuel.

The attached recording begins at about 17:42:30z.
 

Attachments

  • First Tower Conversation.mp3
    293.4 KB · Views: 23
Everskyward said:
Especially if it's shown that they didn't have any other delays during their flight.
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be much of a delay visible on FlightAware.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • AAY426 23July2105.png
    AAY426 23July2105.png
    230.6 KB · Views: 13
  • AAY426 23July2105 Flight Path.png
    AAY426 23July2105 Flight Path.png
    93.7 KB · Views: 108
From: Communications
Date: July 30, 2015 at 7:49:44 PM EDT
Subject: Review of LAS-FAR Flight #426


​
Team Member,


By this point, you’ve likely seen news coverage about last Thursday's flight from Las Vegas (LAS) to Fargo (FAR). Below is a summary of the details that was provided to several media outlets today. We wanted to make sure these same details were made available to each of you.


As always, if you are approached by a media representative, please direct them to contact us.


— Communications Team




————————————




Allegiant’s investigation into the events that led to a declaration of emergency on flight 426 from Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS) to Hector International Airport (FAR) on July 23, 2015 has resulted in the following determinations of fact. The company and the FAA found that the pilot operated flight 426 in a safe manner and within the bounds of all regulations. Allegiant has been in constant communication with the FAA during this investigation and has not been advised of any additional surveillance or heightened oversight by the FAA.

The safety of passengers and employees is Allegiant’s number one priority. “Allegiant works closely with the FAA on a daily basis to continually monitor and share data regarding our operations,” said Eric Gust, Allegiant’s vice president of safety and security.

With regard to the specific circumstances surrounding flight 426, Allegiant’s chief operating officer Steve Harfst said, “The NOTAM provided for this airport clearly exempted scheduled air carriers from the airfield closure, and it wasn’t until the aircrew contacted Fargo tower directly that they were advised that the airfield was closed to all traffic. This was an issue for multiple commercial and non-commercial aircraft attempting to land at Fargo during this period and not just Allegiant. Our captain exercised sound judgment in the operation of his aircraft.”

After a full and thorough review by our safety team under the direction of Gust, the following determinations of fact have been made:


· The aircraft was dispatched with reserve fuel in compliance with company standards and all FAA regulations.


· There were 142 passengers and two lap children on board, and six crew members on board the MD-80.


· At the time of departure, there was a posted temporary flight restriction (TFR) for Fargo for 5 hours and there was also an FAA notice to airman (NOTAM) posted for Fargo that indicated that the airport remained open to scheduled air carriers.


· During the time of the posted TFR closure 15 flights, both commercial and non-commercial, landed at Fargo. Two scheduled air carriers were cleared to land approximately 15 minutes after flight 426, and multiple aircraft landed at Fargo prior to the approach of flight 426.


· Approximately 10 minutes prior to flight 426 landing, another scheduled air carrier experienced the same confusion about the TFR and NOTAM. While on approach, they queried air traffic control (ATC) as to the airport’s closure and highlighted the NOTAM, which excluded the closure to scheduled air carriers. They were not given the option to declare an emergency in order to continue their landing in Fargo and were forced to divert to another airport.


· The company was aware of the TFR at the airport in advance, and despite the exception for scheduled air carriers, Allegiant scheduled flight 426 to arrive prior to the closure. Before departing Las Vegas, a passenger experienced a medical emergency and was transported by ambulance to a local hospital. This delayed the flight causing it to arrive at Fargo after the posted TFR began.


· Upon approach to Fargo, flight 426 was cleared by air traffic control to begin descent to 6,000 feet to be vectored for landing. At this point, flight 426 was on profile to land with the originally planned landing fuel. It was not until flight 426 started their descent that ATC stated that the airport was closed. At that point flight 426 stopped the descent at 14,000 feet to conserve fuel and coordinate a landing clearance with Fargo station personnel as per ATC’s instructions.


· Flight 426 spent approximately 18 minutes coordinating with the Fargo station personnel, who were attempting to connect by telephone with ATC, to establish a landing clearance as directed by ATC.


· Fargo station was not able to establish contact with the phone numbers provided. At this point, flight 426 was now 2-3 minutes from starting to use their reserve fuel.


· The pilot was then given the option to either declare an emergency to land in Fargo or divert to Grand Forks. Although sufficient fuel remained to divert to Grand Forks, flight 426 made the decision to declare an emergency, allowing the flight to land immediately at Fargo in order to avoid utilizing reserve fuel.


· The flight landed safely at 1:02 p.m. CDT with approximately 42 minutes of reserve fuel remaining.
 
Last edited:
This is a rather odd statement (regarding a previous aircraft): "They were not given the option to declare an emergency in order to continue their landing in Fargo and were forced to divert to another airport."
 
Palmpilot said:
This is a rather odd statement (regarding a previous aircraft): "They were not given the option to declare an emergency in order to continue their landing in Fargo and were forced to divert to another airport."
Click to expand...

I thought that was funny as well. Apparently the Communications office doesn't understand the PIC->EMERG<-ATC relationship.
 
They landed with only 42 minutes fuel remaining? Looking at that nearly direct track on Flightaware, I am left wondering where did they burn fuel unexpectedly? Or, did they launch with just 45 minutes reserve, calculated using best-case scenarios, and encounter a three minute delay that caused them to declare an emergency?
 
NoHeat said:
They landed with only 42 minutes fuel remaining? Looking at that nearly direct track on Flightaware, I am left wondering where did they burn fuel unexpectedly? Or, did they launch with just 45 minutes reserve, calculated using best-case scenarios, and encounter a three minute delay that caused them to declare an emergency?
Click to expand...

Push the speed to counter the T/O delay = more fuel being burned compared vs what they would have at a slower speed/longer time. That could easily cut into it. I can burn an extra ~20% more fuel/hr and only get an extra ~5% increase in speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top