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 think it’s a common misconception or misinterpretation of the rules that say you must take off with enough fuel to reach your destination, then depending on whether they filed IFR or VFR, land with 45 minutes or 30 minutes of fuel remaining.
It’s not a violation to land with less than the minimum required fuel, as long as you took off with the appropriate amount. Obviously, pilots are hesitant to land with less, because you don’t want to run out.
I’m not familiar with the case you’re talking about, but if the pilots were worried about getting into trouble for landing with less than the required minimums for reasons beyond their control, they didn’t understand the rule, or they had unnecessary pressure being placed on them by their management.
Edit: as pointed out, I clearly applied US rules to what sounds like a British airline. YMMV.
Latest Answers