This may not apply to all airlines, or apply to today’s world, but I was watching a video on Britannia 226A crash from 1999. In the video, they mentioned that the pilots were under pressure to land, so they wouldn’t have to explain to their bosses why they landed with less than the minimum amount of fuel required.
If a plane takes off, has to abandon a landing attempt, or complete an extra go around, or has to stay in a holding pattern, or has to divert… but they land safely without incident nor issue, why would that be an issue? What else could the pilots do?
Edit to add the answer (thank you for all of the replies, everyone! I misunderstood entirely what the video was attempting to convey): There are aviation safety boards with strict rules and landing with low fuel is grounds for a report and an investigation into the flight, so the safety boards can find the root cause for why the flight did not have an adequate amount of fuel on landing. The pilots may get into trouble if the investigation finds they were at fault, but it is more geared towards safety and attributing a root cause for the issue to make a low fuel event less likely in the future.
In: 707
I’m an airline pilot. Unexpected things happen constantly. Delays getting into the airport, unforecasted weather, runway closures, stronger headwinds than anticipated, having to do a go-around, etc. We’re required by law to have 45 minutes (USA rules) of extra fuel on board to account for any extra delays that might happen. If the weather isn’t ideal, we also have to bring extra fuel to divert to an alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes after we get there. I frequently bring extra fuel on top of this because I feel like 45 minutes isn’t enough. Airlines sometimes don’t like this because bringing extra fuel means you burn more fuel ($$$) since you’re heavier, but as a Captain they will give you the extra gas anyway if you insist.
Latest Answers