Easyjet – overfuelled – 37 told to get off (Merged)

PeeDee

No dispatcher will tell the commander how much fuel he needs – period. The one saving grace about a dispatcher is that “generally” they’ll know how to do a manual load sheet, which has saved our arses a few times 😀

Thats certainly how I remember it.

It’d be interesting to know what the MTOW of the a/c involved was. eJ’s 319s are either 64, 66 or 68 tonners, with a lot of them being moved towards the heavier end (albeit temporarily) during the French fuel strike to enable round trip fuel to be carried. Of course the actual Airbus MTOW for the 319 is 74,500Kgs and MLW is 74,000Kgs, but since none of the eJ fleet are certified for that weight, and the LPC isn’t configured for it either I doubt they had the option of using those figures!

EasyJet investigates over-fuelling incident

UK low-cost carrier EasyJet is investigating how one of its Airbus A319 aircraft was so heavily over-fuelled at Birmingham Airport that more than 30 passengers had to disembark in order to bring weights down to acceptable take-off levels.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/12/351765/easyjet-investigates-over-fuelling-incident.html

PeeDee

Mpacha

What do you mean airports take fuel from bowsers? Also airlines having de-fuel bowsers is slightly different to the refuellers de-fuelling the aeroplane. Smaller operators probably do reuse fuel de-fuelled, purely down to costs, and you even said it yourself, for light aircraft. We’re talking about an Airbus 319 here.
Dispatchers will keep one eye on the weather, but it’s still pretty irrelevant to their operation apart from “oh look, we cannot dispatch this a/c because the wx is below minima”. This would be a very, very rare occasion, and certainly wouldn’t warrant a dispatcher deciphering how much fuel a particular aircraft should take. (which is what the discussion was about)

The point I’m making as I said, there are various ways that airlines do things.
The topic being discussed was about the possibility of defueling, not that it had to be done by the refueller. Some airports do not refuel from ground tanks but still use bowsers.

Dispatchers would never dictate what fuel goes on board. They only create a fuel log which in most cases is merely a print-out from a service provider. That part we agree on 🙂

I couldn’t agree more

[QUOTE=Skymonster;1688532 Sadly the industry has changed a lot since then… ……the industry would need to charge in order to provide service levels they demand when things go wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Andy

I couldn’t agree more.

I still do EDI-LHR T5 return on BA for relatively better value overall (seat reservation, baggage allowance, meal/snack/drinks, etc included) and with the rapid Heathrow Express journey into Central London it can be quite an efficient contrast from going in to Stanstead on an LCA. (I book as early as possible of course with BA)

I have contrasted it with the days when BA had a standby ‘shuttle’ aircraft on the EDI-LHR or GLA-LHR for overflow passengers. These were the days when the shuttle was open ticket, literally walk on board and fly.

I remember those days well… Sadly the industry has changed a lot since then… Generally fares are now much lower in real terms, competition greater, and margins are much tighter making such provisions impossible. The proles who moan about the failures of the industry (i.e the easyJet passengers in this case) are the same people who would not tolerate the fares that the industry would need to charge in order to provide service levels they demand when things go wrong.

Andy

I wouldn’t describe EZY as a weak LCA

If it was BA it wouldn’t be in the news.
Kick the weak, as per the usual British press……
……Must be hell being a reporter, my heart bleeds.
Wan**ers, as bad as the politicians they often mock.

I wouldn’t describe EZY as a weak LCA.
Stelios is recently kicking up hell (my recent post) and demanding more EPS.
In my post I suggested exactly what has possibly happened in this situation – a sacrifice of customer service in the pursuit of pure profit. http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105917

I am not disputing the technicalities of what you say…

Not necessarily the airline’s fault – could be the fueler. No point in crossing an airline off because of a mistake. Realistically what could easyJet do? The aircraft couldn’t be legally dispatched overweight, the fuel couldn’t be taken off (well not in a reasonable way anyway), easyJet only have a couple of Geneva flights into BHX (all likely to be full on Boxing Day), contrary to belief airlines don’t just keep spare aeroplanes and crews kicking around waiting for cockups to happen, and even if they did there could be slot problems (flow problems into Geneva on a busy ski day too possibly)… S@@t happens And could to any airline – seems like this was one of those occasions but sadly the chavs who travel with the locos won’t accept that these days.

Andy

Hi Andy

I am not disputing the technicalities of what you say, and recognise the problem of slots out of BHX and in to Geneva. Nor am I going near the detail in the news report of the problems to passengers as it may be full of ‘holes’.

I have contrasted it with the days when BA had a standby ‘shuttle’ aircraft on the EDI-LHR or GLA-LHR for overflow passengers. These were the days when the shuttle was open ticket, literally walk on board and fly.

If the report is true about all the passenger inconveniences though it sure spoilt some peoples’ festive season/holiday.

You aren’t rambling – thanks

There are several instances where overweight aircraft have been lost on/ shortly after take off. Africa is littered with examples (no pun intended) and many people (French investigators not withstanding) believe it was a contributory factor in the loss of Concorde.

hope my rambling helps

regards

“and many people (French investigators not withstanding) believe it was a contributory factor in the loss of Concorde” – count me in on this belief – I have been driven by close French friends past the crash site at Gonesse long before any tidying up was done. What a tragedy all round

Lindermyer you certainly aren’t rambling – thanks for the comments.

PeeDee

No dispatcher will tell the commander how much fuel he needs – period. The one saving grace about a dispatcher is that “generally” they’ll know how to do a manual load sheet, which has saved our arses a few times 😀

Mpacha

What do you mean airports take fuel from bowsers? Also airlines having de-fuel bowsers is slightly different to the refuellers de-fuelling the aeroplane. Smaller operators probably do reuse fuel de-fuelled, purely down to costs, and you even said it yourself, for light aircraft. We’re talking about an Airbus 319 here.
Dispatchers will keep one eye on the weather, but it’s still pretty irrelevant to their operation apart from “oh look, we cannot dispatch this a/c because the wx is below minima”. This would be a very, very rare occasion, and certainly wouldn’t warrant a dispatcher deciphering how much fuel a particular aircraft should take. (which is what the discussion was about)

Interesting points.

Just a few corrections. Some airports do take fuel from bowsers. Some airlines do have defuel bowsers, especially if it is a maintenance base. And some smaller operators do re-use the fuel, which is tested for contamination prior to use. (Light aircraft) Most airlines I’ve worked for, the weather is relevant to a flight dispatcher and it is part of his/her daily tasks to monitor it.

My point is that one has so many variables, that to comment one really needs to study the facts for that particular airline/airport.

Are dispatchers skilled people these days? They used to be one step up from a baggage thrower. Surely, absolutely surely…some hairyarsed ground crew cannot be telling the pilot how much fuel he needs?

If it was BA it wouldn’t be in the news.
Kick the weak, as per the usual British press.
And, news is scarce at the moment, the Oz floods have become old news and boring, deaths in Afghan have reduced this month and the Snow has gone. Must be hell being a reporter, my heart bleeds.
Wan**ers, as bad as the politicians they often mock.

Interesting points.

Just a few corrections. Some airports do take fuel from bowsers. Some airlines do have defuel bowsers, especially if it is a maintenance base. And some smaller operators do re-use the fuel, which is tested for contamination prior to use. (Light aircraft) Most airlines I’ve worked for, the weather is relevant to a flight dispatcher and it is part of his/her daily tasks to monitor it.

My point is that one has so many variables, that to comment one really needs to study the facts for that particular airline/airport.

True Andy, very true 😉

Andy

I am saying I don’t know where they got the 10t figure from, because the passengers and baggage figure that they would use to offload what they stated comes in at about 4.2t. Something doesn’t add up.

One of the linked reports says the aeroplane was overfuelled by 10 tons – that could be read to mean not that it was 10 tons over MTOW, but that the uplift was 10 tons more than requested, taking the aircraft over MTOW but not 10 tons over (I.e if the uplift had been correct the a/c would have been well under MTOW).

Andy

LCA are definitely off my tolerance limits as this shows their attitude to passengers even though the overloading of fuel was most likely the airline’s fault.

Not necessarily the airline’s fault – could be the fueler. No point in crossing an airline off because of a mistake. Realistically what could easyJet do? The aircraft couldn’t be legally dispatched overweight, the fuel couldn’t be taken off (well not in a reasonable way anyway), easyJet only have a couple of Geneva flights into BHX (all likely to be full on Boxing Day), contrary to belief airlines don’t just keep spare aeroplanes and crews kicking around waiting for cockups to happen, and even if they did there could be slot problems (flow problems into Geneva on a busy ski day too possibly)… S@@t happens And could to any airline – seems like this was one of those occasions but sadly the chavs who travel with the locos won’t accept that these days.

Andy

Andy

I am saying I don’t know where they got the 10t figure from, because the passengers and baggage figure that they would use to offload what they stated comes in at about 4.2t. Something doesn’t add up.

wesley

You are right, because the figures don’t add up. They offloaded 37 passengers. Using standard passenger weights that airlines use, even if they were all males this would only equate to 3.25 tonnes. factor in a couple of bags each at standard weights and you are looking in total about 4.36 tonnes. Quite where they got 10 tonnes from is anyone’s guess. It is the media afterall. Mustn’t let the truth get in the way of a good story :rolleyes:

Reading the two reports (that do differ in several respects, not least the number of pax offloaded) – it seems like the uplift was 10 tons over, taking the a/c over MTOW, and the 30 pax (or 37 depending on who you believe) and baggage had to be offloaded to bring the a/c down to MTOW (still more than required trip fuel but legal to dispatch).

Birmingham still uses bowsers rather than hydrants – at least on some stands.

Andy

Do I read from this mostly useful set of posts ? …..

1. This wasn’t an emergency obviously by strict definition – an overweight aircraft deemed unsafe for take off.

No emergency at all, just an unfortunate incident as i believe it was resolved before the aircraft left the stand

2. The fuel once on the aircraft is the property of the airline. Therefore it cannot be returned to fuel trucks as they and the fuel in them (if they have any at all) are the property of the fuel owners.

In theory BP could buy it back, The problem is that the aircraft tanks are not for want of a better term sterile, so fuel that has been in them cannot be offloaded into a vessel that will be used to supply fuel to another aicraft

3. The fuel trucks are simply ‘pumping’ devices between underground fuel storage tanks and pipes with safety shut off valves and receiving aircraft.

In this case I personally dont know – it probably depends on the airport – i have seen plenty of tankers on smaller air fields

4. It’s better to give the passengers the ‘big e’ with meagre compensation (if any) rather than have a spare aircraft fly them to their destination ‘pronto’ (like BA used to do with their shuttle services for overflow passengers)

That I suppose depends on passenger numbers, availability of a spare aircraft and crew, if you can get a take off slot and equally a landing slot at the other end all that may be prohibitivly expensive or not possible.

LCA are definitely off my tolerance limits as this shows their attitude to passengers even though the overloading of fuel was most likely the airline’s fault.

Unfortunatly the aircraft going nowhere until weight is off loaded pax are the easiest option, how they were treated well no one will be happy in those circumstances – the level of compensation should reflect that and i hope an apology –

Aviation fuel if dumped (anywhere) in an emergency while in flight is okay

Its not ok as such but it is a necassery evil.

but in the situation that presented (non emergency on ground) there was no where to dump it without everyone being accused of pollution.

See above comment re storage and even dumping in an approved waste tank (if available) would be a waste of money.

Isn’t this a scenario that has surely presented before, and in one extreme case in point ended in a tragedy most of us in this forum lament?

There are several instances where overweight aircraft have been lost on/ shortly after take off. Africa is littered with examples (no pun intended) and many people (French investigators not withstanding) believe it was a contributory factor in the loss of Concorde.

hope my rambling helps

regards

Do I read from this mostly useful set of posts ?

Do I read from this mostly useful set of posts ? …..

1. This wasn’t an emergency obviously by strict definition – an overweight aircraft deemed unsafe for take off.

2. The fuel once on the aircraft is the property of the airline. Therefore it cannot be returned to fuel trucks as they and the fuel in them (if they have any at all) are the property of the fuel owners.

3. The fuel trucks are simply ‘pumping’ devices between underground fuel storage tanks and pipes with safety shut off valves and receiving aircraft.

4. It’s better to give the passengers the ‘big e’ with meagre compensation (if any) rather than have a spare aircraft fly them to their destination ‘pronto’ (like BA used to do with their shuttle services for overflow passengers)

LCA are definitely off my tolerance limits as this shows their attitude to passengers even though the overloading of fuel was most likely the airline’s fault.

Aviation fuel if dumped (anywhere) in an emergency while in flight is okay but in the situation that presented (non emergency on ground) there was no where to dump it without everyone being accused of pollution.

Isn’t this a scenario that has surely presented before, and in one extreme case in point ended in a tragedy most of us in this forum lament?