16 ms·
Ryanair flight landed at Manchester airport with six minutes of fuel left
- SoftTalker 1y agoBetween overworked, understaffed ATC and undertrained pilots, I'm expecting some major disasters in the coming years.
- cschmatzler 1y agoThis had nothing to do with any of that tho.
- SoftTalker 1y agoPilots are ultimately the ones who are responsible for when and where to land, when to divert, and how much fuel to take along.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ItsBob 1y agoIn this case, they likely had adequate fuel for, the usual eventualities but the weather in Scotland was particularly bad that night across the whole country (source: I live near Prestwick airport). Either Edinburgh (on the east coast) or Prestwick (on the west coast) are ok (one or the other or both) but in this case neither was suitable so the nearest was Manchester - definitely an edge-case. I don't know how much fuel they had, or if they could've fitted any more on the plane but it was unusual circumstances. There was a military plane right behind it with the same issue that night too.
- Spare_account 1y agoWere these pilots undertrained?
- doitLP 1y agoWhy? Is ATC a problem in other countries than the US? Are they also under training pilots? If anything RyanAir with its flamboyant history of cost cutting (CEO always threatening to charge for use of the onboard lavatory) seems a more likely source than the flying infrastructure itself.
- xnorswap 1y agoRyanair has a very good safety history, among the highest in the world. They make outrageous claims for publicity, and their customer experience is all about hidden extras and "gotcha" pricing, but I don't think they fuck around when it comes to safety. They know that with their reputation they would be sunk if they did have a major incident.
- intrasight 1y agoSo it's sunk? They just had a major incident.
- jacquesm 1y agoLet's wait for the investigation results before coming to that conclusion.
- jakub_g 1y agoIt's both true that Ryanair has very good safety record, and that in the past there were incidents with them landing on low fuel. https://www.eurocockpit.eu/news/mayday-mayday-wins-over-ryanair-defamation-allegations https://www.eurocockpit.eu/news/mayday-mayday-wins-over-ryan... > In 2012 and 2013 “Brandpunt Reporter” broadcasted a two episode TV investigation in which Ryanair pilots, speaking anonymously, raised concerns about the airline’s fuel policies and company culture. The pilots revealed that the company may be exerting pressure on them to minimize the amount of fuel they take on board – a practice which limits significantly the fuel costs for the company but could jeopardise safety in certain circumstances. The direct reasons for this broadcast were 3 emergency landings of Ryanair aircraft in Valencia Spain on the 26 July 2012, within a short timeframe due to low fuel levels.
- stuartjohnson12 1y agoClosely followed by the ritual lampooning of some senior middle managers who by the fish-in-barrel method were discovered to not be doing very much.
- dghlsakjg 1y agoWhat indication is there that our pilots are undertrained? I am just a PPL, and that was not an easy thing to accomplish (most pilots complete 50% more hours than required before they are able to pass that test), but my impression is that western training standards for commercial pilots are incredibly high, and the safety record seems to back that up.
- psunavy03 1y agoInternet vibes, basically.
- bombcar 1y agoIts arguably too high, constraining the supply of pilots, and the supply of well-paying jobs, resulting in things like Colgan Air Flight 3407.
- dghlsakjg 1y agoIn the US, I think that's probably true especially using hours as a proxy for training. The EU has shown us that you can safely have far fewer hours. As a pilot I do think that nothing replaces butt in seat, but I also think that 1500 hours of instructing/aerial surveying/hour building is well into the diminished marginal returns area.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- the_mitsuhiko 1y agoOne of the problems with modern internet discourse is there is an implicit assumption that the problem of one country is automatically the problem of another country.
- afavour 1y agoFlights operate internationally?
- bendigedig 1y agoI think that's just Americans tbh.
- bilekas 1y ago> Between overworked, understaffed ATC and undertrained pilots, I'm expecting some major disasters in the coming years. Maybe in the US, but this story is based in Europe, each country maintains a regulated standard and there are no EU wide disruptions that have ever happened to the best of my knowledge. Also Ryanair don't travel transatlantic flights.
- jakub_g 1y agoThree weeks ago in Nice, France it was a fraction of a second away from two A320s crashing [0] and possibly hundreds of deaths, similar to Tenerife disaster [1]. Investigation is ongoing and many factors are at play (bad weather, extra work for ATC due to that, confusing lighting of runways etc) but also, from French media reports, there used to be 15 people per shift 5y ago in Nice ATC, now there are just 12, and traffic is higher. Many people left the profession during Covid and haven't been replaced. [0] https://avherald.com/h?article=52d656fd&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=52d656fd&opt=0 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
- bilekas 1y agoMistakes and disasters happen, unfortunately the safety we have while flying today has been written in blood, but there is no major understaffed ATC and undertrained pilots in general as mentioned. 15 down to 12 in 5 years with more traffic is not out of the question with advancements in technology but of course, if there is a report that shows understaffing then absolutely it should be addressed straight away and it will be, by the French government.
- SoftTalker 1y agoRyanair does use low-hour fresh-out-of-training pilots though. Certainly not the only airline that does that either.
- mardifoufs 1y agoI mean, the US also hasn't had any widespread waves of disruptions that led to incidents or flight problems. Same as the EU. American flights and airspace are usually safer too, statistically speaking.
- arp242 1y agoI've never heard of any of these problems with RyanAir. They treat you as less than cattle and generally their service is shit, but I'm not aware of RyanAir being unsafe. Actually, in a quick check it seems the total fatality count for RyanAir is zero, with only two (on-fatal) major incidents (2008, 2021). That's seems a pretty good track record considering the amount of flights they do.
- anonymousDan 1y agoYeah there's a lot of hatred of Ryanair given their somewhat pugnacious attitude. But as far as I know they don't mess around when it comes to safety.
- tyre 1y agoLooks like they tried two attempts to land in Prestwick over two hours, then flew to Edinburgh and made one aborted landing, then finally went to Manchester. What a nerve wracking experience for those pilots. I wonder if on the final attempt they knew they had to force it down no matter what.
- simplicio 1y agoAssuming it wasn't just luck, it seems impressive they managed to maximize their (landing attempts/fuel reserves) ratio like that.
- searedsteak 1y agoIt is a requirement [1] to land with 45 minutes of fuel remaining, if the pilots go under that, it is considered an incident. As soon as estimated landing fuel goes under the limit, the flight needs to declare an emergency (as was done in this case). [1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFRef6e8c57f580cfd/section-91.167 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F... is the US rule, EASA has a similar rule.
- jacquesm 1y agoExactly. This will have a lot of consequences.
- jacquesm 1y agoThey got within a hair of crashing, there is nothing impressive about this. 30 minutes, ok, you still get written up but this is cutting it way too fine.
- maccard 1y ago> this is cutting it way too fine. Either this is true, or this is why there’s a 45 minute reserve requirement. There were three failed landing attempts in two airports prior to the successful landing, and they spent almost as much time attempting to land as the scheduled flight took. Seems like this was exactly the scenario it was designed for?
- bell-cot 1y ago> The pilots had been taking passengers from Pisa in Italy to Prestwick in Scotland on Friday evening, but wind speeds of up to 100mph meant they were unable to land. > After three failed attempts to touch down, the pilots of Ryanair flight FR3418 issued a mayday emergency call and raced to Manchester, where the weather was calmer. #1 - if Prestwick had wind speeds up to 100mph, then why the h*ll was the airport not closed down? #2 - if the pilots had experienced conditions that dire during their first two landing attempts at Prestwick, then why the h*ll did they stick around for a third attempt? EDIT: The article's a big vague, but it seems to have been 2 attempts at Prestwick, then 1 at Edinburgh, then the last-minute "oops, do I really want to die today?" decision to run to Manchester.
- Quillbert182 1y agoLooks like the third attempt was actually in Edinburgh
- closewith 1y agoThe third attempted landing was in their diversion airport, Edinburgh, not a third at Prestwick.
- TulliusCicero 1y agoThe third attempt was in Edinburgh, looks like.
- sleepyguy 1y agoThe plane landed with approx 67 gallons of fuel. They typically land with 670 gallons. A US gallon of Kerosene weights approx 6.5 lbs
- jacquesm 1y agoThat is very exceptional. I've written fuel estimation software for airliners (cargo, fortunately), and the number of rules regarding go-arounds, alternates and holding time resulted in there usually being quite a bit of fuel in the tanks on landing, by design. I've never heard of '6 minutes left' in practice where it wasn't a massive issue and the investigation into how this could have happened will make for interesting reading. A couple of notes: the wind and the time spent on the three go-arounds + what was necessary to get to the alternate may not be the whole story here, that's actually factored in before you even take off. I'd be very wary to get ahead of the investigation and make speculative statements on how this could have happened, the one thing that I know for sure is that it shouldn't have happened, no matter what.
- psunavy03 1y agoAnd the reason why those fuel reserves exist is to be a guard band allowing situations like this to happen without flames, wreckage, and death. Having worked with many US airline pilots over the years, this is also why they are so proud to be unionized. Sure, senior pilots make as much as some FAANG developers, but the union is also there so that management doesn't get bright ideas about things like cutting fuel reserves to cut costs without the union telling them to stuff it.
- jacquesm 1y agoManagement can't cut fuel reserves, not because the pilots are unionized but because there are some very strict rules about these fuel estimations prior to take off and margins be damned. And those rules are exactly there because otherwise this kind of incident would happen far more frequently. But it's regulation that is the backstop here, not the pilots.
- psunavy03 1y agoThe point is that the unions are there to allow the pilots to advocate for all kinds of safety-of-flight related things like fuel reserves, crew rest, and so forth that management would be happy to cut to save money. And to do so without fear of retaliation. And if you don't think the airlines would love to lobby Congress about the regulatory backstop, well . . .
- mindslight 1y agoSounds like pilot error - they didn't pay the extra fee to have reserve fuel.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- addandsubtract 1y ago"Worth it" - Ryanair probably
- unit149 1y ago[dead]
- deadbabe 1y agoOn the positive side, if they had made a crash landing with so little fuel, there would not likely have been a fiery explosion, and many more passengers would have survived than normal?
- jacquesm 1y agoAir + fuel explodes just fine. You really don't want to crash an airliner. At landing speed the number of people dead will still be > 0 and the remainder has a good chance of being injured seriously. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951 This happened at landing speed (the airport is only a few hundred meters from the crash site) and the plane was at the end of its flight from Turkey, it did not catch fire. Still, 9 people perished and the remainder were all but one injured 11 of them seriously.
- deadbabe 1y agoOnly 7% died, pretty good for a plane of that size with a rough landing.
- jacquesm 1y agoYes, even though that is a harsh conclusion to make and for the families involved of course it doesn't matter at all. But as these come this was bad but still not nearly as bad as it could have been. They were about to cross one of the busiest highways in NL, another 100 meters and it would have been an entirely different story. The field they landed in is in the Haarlemmermeerpolder, so clay and it had just been plowed.
- 12_throw_away 1y agoDunno about "only" ... 99.99998% of flights kill 0% of their passengers. Even if "just" one passenger dies in an incident, your flight is already in the 0.00002th percentile for safety, very bad!
- PunchyHamster 1y ago
- Molitor5901 1y agoPossibly related, but not definite, this apparently has happened before with Ryan Air. https://avherald.com/h?article=454af355 https://avherald.com/h?article=454af355 https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/exclusive-safety-warning-as-budget-airlines-such-as-ryanair-cut-fuel-levels-for-flights-8749046.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/exclusi... These were not definitive but it did raise concerns due to the budget nature of the airline.
- AceyMan 1y agoUnder FAA rules this was a screwup. [edit: see my own reply] (However, the rules are subtle, so they can be partially forgiven.) However, I'm not only a dispatcher but also a philosophy BA, so I've found a good way to explain it. Your reserve fuel (the "extra" fuel over what the actual flight burn) can of course be used (hello, that's what it's there for) but—and here's the rub—you can never plan on using it. That is to say, in this case, when they missed their first or second approach, they CANNOT say, "We'll use our reserve fuel and make another go at it" because that would be intentionally planning to burn your reserve. You may only dip into your reserve when you have no other choice. In this case, when the only fuel they had left was reserve, they are obligated by law to proceed to the alternate airport, which clearly they did not do [correction: they did do the proper thing; see my 2nd reply below]. No bueno. [this is a slight simplification (minor details omitted for brevity) but the kernel of the issue is properly described]
- crazygringo 1y ago> That is to say, in this case, when they missed their first or second approach, they CANNOT say, "We'll use our reserve fuel and make another go at it" because that would be intentionally planning to burn your reserve. Is that what happened? That's not in the article, what's the source? And other comments here are saying the third attempt was in Edinburgh, so they were already trying to land anywhere possible by the third attempt. At what point are you saying they chose to plan on using reserves when they still had any option for landing without reserves?
- whycome 1y agoOP didn’t have the full picture. They’ve offered appropriate edits/updates
- AceyMan 1y agoUpdate: OK, if *Edinburgh* was their alternate and they missed there and were then forced to bugout for Manchester, that's then an example of when reserve is OK to be burned. (The 'slight simplification' I omitted was unpacking how the alternate fuel plays into the process, but here, that was a key part of the series of events.) That's what I get for not reading TFA first :-/
- robthebrew 1y agoI imagine the next step will be RyanAir asking passengers to carry fuel cans onto the plane. B*tards.
- nomilk 1y ago> One pilot who reviewed the log said: “Just imagine that whenever you land with less than 2T (2,000kg) of fuel left you start paying close attention to the situation. Less than 1.5T you are sweating. But (220kg) is as close to a fatal accident as possible.”
- DamnInteresting 1y agoNow that is range anxiety.
- blizkreeg 1y agoAs a naive person, I have a simple question - why would they even fly to an airport where there's 100mph winds? Wouldn't ATC know this and tell the flight way in advance to fly to a different destination?
- NoiseBert69 1y agoForecasts are based on multiple weather simulation runs. It's a often good working gamble that you will pick a short period of weather that is within your operational limits. Commercial pilots don't have "personal limits". It's defined by their airplane and/or companies constraints.
- martinald 1y agoBecause the weather is very changeable. You may get a lull in the wind for a couple of mins, enough to land. I've been on a couple of flights like that. Once where we did two attempts and landed on the 2nd, the other where we did 3 but the had to divert. Other planes were just managing to land in the winds before and after our attempts. The other problem is (as I found out on that flight) that mass diversions are not good. The airport I diverted to in the UK had dozens of unexpected arrivals, late at night. There wasn't the ground staff to manage this so it took forever to get people off. It then was too full to accept any more landings, so further flights had to get diverted further and further away. So, if you did a blanket must divert you'd end up with all the diversion airports full (even to flights that could have landed at their original airport) and a much more dangerous situation as your diversions are now in different countries.
- w10-1 1y agoCan anyone say whether airline pilots make each diversion decision solely based on their own information and judgment, or do they loop in the company?
- AceyMan 1y agoUnless they are in an emergency and are busy with aviating, they will coordinate with their dispatcher on diverting, even if only to verify that the weather at the intended alternate is still favorable. Per the FAA regulations, the PIC and the dispatcher have joint operational control over the flight. Of course, at the end of the day, only the pilots have their hands on the controls, so they can make the plane do what they want—but from a legal standpoint, the dispatcher and pilot-in-command have equal & shared responsibility for the safe operation of the flight.
- AceyMan 1y agoI realize this is a UK carrier and was operating in the EU/UK, but for the most part, the rest of the world uses the US legal framework for aviation as a boilerplate for their own civil code. Yes, there are some differences, but these are usually minor and more of "differences in quantity" rather than "differences in kind". [Since the airplane was invented here the US had a head start on regulating civil aviation.]
- 12_throw_away 1y agoSure, company dispatchers are usually part of the conversation, and in non-emergency diversions (i.e. the vast majority), they may suggest specific airports that would be more convenient for company logistics. But the final decision is always the pilots' - and once they've declared an emergency, more or less every single airfield, including military, becomes available to them.
- inoffensivename 1y agoAirline captain here. We definitely involve the dispatcher in the diversion decision. Especially if it's an unplanned diversion, where the big-picture view the dispatcher has is very useful for us in our metal tube.
- chrisshroba 1y agoFor anyone interested, here is the flight playback: https://fr24.com/data/flights/fr3418#3c7f91f4 https://fr24.com/data/flights/fr3418#3c7f91f4
- greggsy 1y agoSub required. I can wait for the Pete the Irish Pilot’s take though.
- gregsadetsky 1y agothis one is available - https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/RYR3418/history/20251003/1425Z/LIRP/EGPK https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/RYR3418/history/2025...
- nomilk 1y agoIs there a way to hear the pilots / ground conversing?
- rappatic 1y ago> the Boeing 737-800 had just 220kg of fuel left in its tanks... enough for just five or six minutes of flying Maybe I'm just unaware, but it's crazy to me that these planes burn 40 kilograms of jet fuel per minute.
- dcchambers 1y agoEspecially crazy considering the 737 is not a particularly large commercial aircraft. 40kg/minute is around 12 gallons (47 liters) of fuel per minute. Meanwhile a 777 burns around 42 gallons (160 liters) per minute. A 747 burns 63 gallons (240 liters) per minute - more than a gallon per second!
- warmwaffles 1y agoIs that at cruising altitude?
- forgotTheLast 1y agoYes
- nicoburns 1y agoThat is why some people avoid flying for environmental reasons. Planes use crazy amounts of fuel.
- phyzome 1y agoYeah, when people say "flying has a high carbon footprint", they're not kidding. It's really quite massive. I don't fly any more.
- Schiendelman 1y agoWant to bake your noodle? Because the market responds to your behavior by slightly lowering the cost of flying to fill those seats, demand increases to match from slightly lower income people. Because they then organize their lives slightly more around cheap flights, it gets even harder to lower the impact of flying. Paradoxically, rich people like us (you're a tech worker too...) flying more, because we're less sensitive to price, leave more room for pricing in carbon reduction strategies in the tickets/taxes. If you have more seats from the lower end of the market... you don't have as much flexibility in solutions.
- kristofferR 1y agoThis very recent Mentour documentary is extremely relevant, came to mind immediately. Multiple redirects due to bad weather, extreme "Get-there-itis" and eventually running out of fuel. Great edutainment if you're feeling in the mood for that. If you're inpatient you can skip to 14 minutes, before that it's just backstory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK_7q9tixX4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK_7q9tixX4
- throwaway-0001 1y agoBetter links https://avherald.com/h?article=52dfe5d7&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=52dfe5d7&opt=0 https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1nzet3a/flight_a_family_member_was_on_landed_with_just/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1nzet3a/flight_a_... Quoted: Incident: Malta Air B738 at Prestwick, Edinburgh and Manchester on Oct 3rd 2025, landed below minimum fuel By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Oct 5th 2025 14:39Z, last updated Friday, Oct 10th 2025 15:02Z A Malta Air Boeing 737-800 on behalf of Ryanair, registration 9H-QBD performing flight FR-3418 from Pisa (Italy) to Prestwick,SC (UK), was on final approach to Prestwick's runway 20 when the crew went around due to weather. The aircraft entered a hold, then attempted a second approach to runway 20 about 30 minutes after the go around, but again needed to go around. The aircraft again entered a hold, about 10 minutes after entering the hold the crew decided to divert to Edinburgh,SC (UK) where the aircraft joined the final approach to runway 24 about one hour after the first go around but again went around. The aircraft subsequently diverted to Manchester,EN (UK) where the aircraft landed on runway 23R about 110 minutes after the first go around. On Oct 5th 2025 The Aviation Herald received information that the aircraft landed below minimum fuel with just 220kg fuel (total, 100kg in left and 120 kg in right tank) remaining. The aircraft returned to service about 13 hours after landing. On Oct 10th 2025 the AAIB reported the occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated. A passenger reported after the first go around at Prestwick the crew announced, they would do another attempt to land at Prestwick, then divert to Manchester. Following the second go around the crew however announced they were now diverting to Edinburgh, only after the failed approach to Edinburgh the crew diverted to Manchester.
- ro_bit 1y ago> The Boeing 737-800 had just 220kg of fuel left in its tanks when it finally landed, according to a picture of what appears to be a handwritten technical log. Pilots who examined the picture said this would be enough for just five or six minutes of flying. For reference, passenger airlines immediately declare emergency if their planned flight path would put them under 30 minutes of fuel (at least in the US). Landing with 5 minutes remaining of fuel is very atypical
- forgotTheLast 1y ago220kg is about 1% of the plane's fuel capacity. They must've had a lot of faith in their fuel probes.
- dlcarrier 1y agoThe latest Captains Speaking podcast has an discussion about one of the hosts being in a similar situation: https://youtu.be/5ovlZ221tDQ https://youtu.be/5ovlZ221tDQ Fortunately, the flight left with extra fuel, because it was cheaper to carry excess from the origin airport than to buy it at the destination airport, so reserve fuel wasn't needed, but it was close. Also, there was lots of lightning.
- prism56 1y agoI absolutely love insights like this into areas of the world I have no knowledge. Makes absolute sense in the modern world but also something I'd not think about
- themafia 1y agoTrucking companies started adding this to their logistics about a decade ago as well. Once they had accurate fuel price information for most of the country they started telling their drivers precisely how much fuel to onboard at each stop.
- prism56 1y agoYeah makes sense. Similar to my electric car now I think about it. Optimises charges based on capacity and price.
- schainks 1y agoSo this is about the stopping problem, but for airplane fuel, kinda?
- m3kw9 1y agoAnother metric conversion error?
- stockresearcher 1y agoThe only real question for the inquiry is how the decision was made to divert to Edinburgh and whether that was a reasonable decision at the time.
- octo888 1y agoAnd then from Edinburgh to Manchester (184 miles) instead of Newcastle (91 miles) or Teeside (125 miles), both airports Ryanair operate out of.
- nerdawson 1y agoMost of the trains north between Preston and Glasgow were being cancelled that day due to the weather. Perhaps knowing they only had one more attempt at landing safely left, Manchester further south seemed like the better bet.
- oncallthrow 1y agoI look forward to watching this one on Mentour Pilot
- precommunicator 1y agoGiven it's Ryanair I doubt we will see it, still hope so (Peter works for them)
- dom96 1y agoI believe he's retired
- mnw21cam 1y agoYou'll probably have to wait a while. Petter is pretty insistent on waiting for the full incident report so that he can be completely thorough and avoid speculating.
- honkostani 1y agoAnd that is how fuel reservoir requirements rise for all. Im sure, the whole airline industry is looking at the whole markets share prices going down- writing happy songs and packing gift baskets for Ryanair.
- ratelimitsteve 1y agoThe headline is about the landing, but the issue here happened at takeoff. There were 100 mph winds at the destination and this was their 4th fallback attempt and their third airport. This flight should never have taken off, the risk of multiple diversions was easily predictable, but the flight took off headed toward an airport in dangerous conditions, got diverted to a second airport that was just as dangerous, then finally to a third where conditions were so bad other flights were being cancelled (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/storm-amy-brings-flight-chaos-201951498.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/storm-amy-brings-flight-chaos-2019...) and where it finally landed because it was either land at that airport or land somewhere that is not at all an airport. Once this flight was in the air, disaster was more or less inevitable and we lucked into a narrow eviting window.
- joelesler 1y ago[flagged]
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago[flagged]
- moltar 1y agoIs it like in the car where you have no fuel left but there’s a reserve of another 10 liters?
- RajT88 1y agoYes and no. I had this happen recently and looked into it. My wife has been using my car, which is a Diesel Golf with a fuel capacity of 14.5 gallons. We set off driving one Saturday to visit my parents, and I noticed the fuel gauge was below empty already. By the time I got to the gas station, I put 14.3 gallons of fuel into it. I calculated that that works out to be about a cup and a half of fuel. So once you hit empty on my car, you definitely have a ways you can drive still. I feel comfortable driving about 30+ miles, and it's never died on me. That puts it at no more than 1 gallon of fuel left in the car based on my experience (not scientific I know, but I've owned 2 of these cars, with about 190k total driven miles). It's a lot less than 10 liters from E to Dead on the roadside.
- PunchyHamster 1y agoprobably depends between cars. on my old civic fuel light is ~5L/1.3 gallons
- aunty_helen 1y agoYou shouldn't tempt fate with a diesel, or any direction injection car for that matter. The high pressure pump will shred itself very quickly as the diesel is used for lubrication.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- RajT88 1y agoBest Practice.
- PunchyHamster 1y agoIt's more like * enough reserve to waste some in traffic. On top of that * enough reserve to find gas station. On top of that * enough reserve to drive to neighbouring city for gas station. On top of that * enough to cruise 30 minutes around that neighbouring city looking for other gas station in case the previous ones were closed. On top of that * enough station to run around parking lot looking for space to park
- paulbjensen 1y agoIt reminds me of a Transavia flight from Girona to Rotterdam that had to be diverted to Amsterdam back in 2015 (1 attempt at Rotterdam, decided to divert to Amsterdam, then 2 attempts in Amsterdam). It was a particularly stormy weekend and it turns out from the article that they had 992kg of fuel left: https://avherald.com/h?article=489d4c3f https://avherald.com/h?article=489d4c3f Massive respect for pilots and the job they do.
- dzhiurgis 1y agoThe Guardian can’t be trusted with their sensationalist headlines. The flight couldn’t land in 3 other airports and eventually declared emergency.
- nisten 1y agoLooks like the emergency reserve management worked?
- baby 1y agoRyanair: Cutting cost at all cost
- bombcar 1y agoEach passenger will be required to bring a 5 gallon can of JET A.
- octo888 1y agoYup. They also popularised excessive baggage under the seat, and I routinely used to see obvious hazards that would impede an evacuation. Staff would turn a blind eye. Probably still do Further, with the baggage being there in easy reach under the seat, I reckon people would be more tempted to take it with them when evacuating. That they're are a safe airline seems to be incredible luck - they have all the components for it not to be.
- 9front 1y agoUnited Airlines Flight 173 ran out of fuel while circling Portland International Airport trying to troubleshoot a landing gear. Six more minutes of fuel could have helped the airliner to land in the Columbia river by the airport or belly land on the runway. The captain chose to keep troubleshooting and crashed just 6 miles away from the airport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173
- higgins 1y agoNothing beats a Jet2 holiday...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ionwake 1y agoStory time, from my past. Waiting on full flight in Europe, good airport, for take off. Pilot says over speaker : " We are delayed becuase FUEL guy got UPSET on tarmac and has QUIT. We know need someone ELSE to fill the plane with FUEL. " Said in a COMPLETELY nonchalant voice. Immediately I get concerned, try not to think what cause a FUEL TECH to QUIT regarding THIS PLANE and fuel issue. Just close my eyes, relax. 2 minutes later pilot comes on intercom again "For some WEIRD reason, someone wants to get off the plane. Now we have to wait for ground crew to find his suitcasebecause of rules. How annoying.." Plane waits for an hour on tarmac for BOTH passenger to get off and for FUEL to be finally "resolved". Arrive eventually at destination. Most of the trouble would have been avoided if the pilot had not sounded nonchalant about a "NON ISSUE about FUEL that a technician just QUIT OVER". I swear i even rememebr saying the statement with a hint of humour, like what on earth is the problem. This is a true story, and the fact this incompetence happened to me, well I wouldnt have believed it otherwise.
- PunchyHamster 1y agolacking fuel in plane that has not started flying isn't exactly something that should stress anyone and most definitely non issue
- ionwake 1y agoYou missed the point of the story, the issue was not lack of fuel, it was a crew member quitting because of a fuel issue, most likely a misunderstanding. Fuel misunderstandings have resulted in numerous serious incidents, try googling it bro
- lyu07282 1y agoI imagine everyone involved know that they are doing dangerous things, not taking a drop more fuel than is legally required for profit, knowing that none of that is going to change unless there is a major accident... They keep[1] landing these planes with X minutes of fuel left, but it doesn't do anything, until some plane falls from the sky with 0 minutes of fuel left then everyone knew all along and the rules are changed and nobody is held accountable. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19267153 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19267153
- hshdhdhehd 1y agoHad a 1 maybe 1.5h holding pattern in Oslo once in Ryanair where they hoped they could land in extreme snow. Then diverted in the end (surprise!). Happened in 2009 though. Joked they were very desperate to land at Oslo because they cant afford to divert.
- jwsteigerwalt 1y agoThis seems to be a case where the error was that the 2nd diversion was to another commercial/passenger airport. The situation after it was determined Edinburgh was a no-go was dire and making it to an airport like Manchester was a luxury they did not have safe fuel for.
- system2 1y agoEven fighter jets have more fuel reserves when they land. This is insane.
- anshumankmr 1y agoThis happened in my country with I think a Vistara flight, where they had 5 minutes of fuel left. I myself went from Bangalore to Delhi a couple of weeks back, and the poor pilots told the air hostesses at least twice or thrice to prepare for landing but the plane did not land until much much later.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoThis one is pretty straightforward so it doesn't need an AAIB report. Failure of pilots to brief destination weather conditions and anticipate proper bingo fuel accordingly. Storms in the area == brief max go arounds, brief alternates, and carry extra fuel. They screwed up by taking unnecessary risks of too many go arounds and barely making an alternate because they didn't play it safe by carrying additional fuel. Take these bold pilots to the chief pilot's office for an uncomfortable conversation without tasty snacks.
- tzahifadida 1y agoGuess which airline I won't be flying with next time...
- jdhzzz 1y agoWhy such a large surplus?
- pcl 1y agoAre there any good online databases with fuel level details for individual commercial flights? I've been on a few flights that had to circle for a long time / had a number of go-round attempts, and I've never been able to find details after the fact about how close to the margins we were.
- octo888 1y agoI wonder if the pilots considered Newcastle (or Teeside)? The METARs showed favourable weather conditions at Newcastle and many planes landed there that day without issue I believe. Also far closer to Edinburgh than Manchester. I wonder if they thought that Manchester being further south, had a better chance of better weather?
- ashanoko 1y ago[dead]
- pjb88 1y agoI saw this plane out my window when it was landing at Prestwick. It was dark and windy about 60mph and I said to my wife "what's that in the sky". The airport is about 5 miles away, for some reason this one caught my eye - in the hundreds/thousands of planes that go by I've never said that before, don't know if it was pointed an odd direction but it appeared stationary. We thought it was like a star, but too bright. We looked it up on flight radar to see if it was a plane and it was the one that later came out. I know this will not be relevant to anything but I thought it was a strange coincidence then I saw it on my hn feed.