A min fuel declaration is not an emergency. Its simply letting ATC know that they cannot accept holding or delay vectors without burning into their reserve fuel. If it was an emergency fuel situation the pilot would have diverted to PVD or accepted 33L approach. BOS has a large Delta operation so a diversion there would be better handled than at a smaller station like PVD which doesnt have as many gates or staff to handle an unplanned arrival. Unlike other weather phenomena, non convective windshear is very tricky to deal with in terms of making decision to attempt the approach again. Visibility, cross winds, thunderstorms and braking action are usually well reported values with well defined limitations. Windshear is simply an alert and theres no real way to know whether you will encounter enough of it or not on the approach to generate a go-around alert. If the windshear was not convectively induced, trying the approach again is major risk to take and will likely result in another go-around with even less fuel to work with.
Great story, truth of the matter is they didnt program the MCDU properly after the missed approach and they received a minimum fuel message since the activated missed approach procedure puts the fuel calculations into an indefinite hold resulting in a lower rem fuel than initially programmed. Had they properly reviewed the legs page they wouldve been able make a second approach or loiter until the windshear passed through. Otherwise, the only reason they would get a minimum fuel situation from a single missed approach is if they flew so far beyond their calculated fuel burn from MSP by constantly lowering their reserve fuel number in the MCDU without dispatch noticing. The weather wasn't even a concern for them as they nonchalantly continued after the PIREP from the preceding aircraft was provided. They werent in a minimum fuel situation-its just what happens to inexperienced crews.
Let's see: weather may have been bad a PVD. Probably more runway options at BOS. Crew base at BOS. Maint base at BOS. More ground staff at BOS to deal with unhappy passengers.
I wonder if this was a dispatcher error, or pilot calculation error. Obviously, an airliner shouldnt be min fuel after 1 go around. Min fuel is not an emergency, but is a priority for handling purposes.
Why go to boston .westover afb civilian aircraft allowed. Barns airport has 7000. Worcester airport or Hanscom field in bedford mass barnes and westover are just north of Hartford Bradley field.
reminds me of the trick ryan air (or some other low cost caririer) did . In order to save on fuel they would file a closer destination then divert to there real destination en route.
This happened to me many years ago. It was Northwest Airlines then. They tried twice to land on RWY 24 but we were almost sideways the last time sowe went to Boston. Landed there about 1 am. No offer of a shuttle to BDL, we were on our own so I offered to rent a car if anyone would pay their share. Two others jumped on the chance. I was pretty tired when i got to BDL so I took a nap in my car before going home. NWA never offered any type of compensation.
As an ignorant airplane nerd can I ask; if they meet the mins for Bradley, wouldn’t Norwood, or even TF Green be a better option if they’re declaring min fuel?
Norwood doesnt take airliners, thats all small aircraft. Also TF Green and Norwood wouldn’t be any closer, it isnt like driving a car because by car all those airports seem really far from each other. In a plane theres no traffic or red lights, so Norwood is probably a 5 minute flight from norwood
Yeah, this is suspicious. We comply with FARs for IFR Part 121 operations, then add "contingency" fuel above that. Also, the Captain has discretion to always add more before departure, if within weight and performance limits.
Unless they were in a 30 minute to 1 hour long holding pattern in Connecticut, I don’t understand why, one: they had no alternate, or two: why they did not have enough fuel! Aren’t these planes supposed to carry enough fuel for both their journey and a certain amount of time for possible flight redirect for weather and enough fuel to get them to their alternate???
If they try again at the original airport and have windshear again which results in another go around, the fuel situation would be worse rather then just diverting after one attempt to ensure they have enough fuel to land at an airport with good weather
It didn't sound like they actually HAD min fuel. It sounded like they chose to declare min fuel to get a more direct routing. Maybe they were low, and trying to avoid a problem but I don't think they actually were at min fuel.
Runway is longer, Delta has a large operations there, perhaps there was weather and Boston was in the clear. If it was a dire situation I guess they could have diverted to HVN, but I also get the suspicion that the pilot may have been a little fast with the "min fuel" call because ATC were planning on extending a bit to get in with the flow. One attempt at BDL should not result in min fuel that quickly unless there was a lengthy ground hold at the departure airport or before making the final approach.
Wait a minute! "Didn't have an alternate"? How can that be on an IFR flight plan? New Haven or Bridgeport are closer. Is someone going to be invited to visit the chief pilot?
Bridgeport is too short for an A319. New Haven could theoretically handle the A319 on empty tanks but like Worcester is not a Delta Operation. They are Avelo and soon to add Breeze
Actually, you aren't "dumb". The FARs are clear about fuel requirements for dispatch on IFR flight plans, especially Part 121 operations. The Captain coordinates with Dispatch at their departure airport, and "agree" on the fuel load. The Captain has absolute authority to over-ride the Dispatcher. We add fuel when we think we need it, for added safety buffer.
@@N1120A They were stating their fuel issues as soon as they had to execute their wind shear maneuver. Like I said, I'm just a dumb passenger, but I think I'd prefer having a bit more fuel on board so we aren't worried about fuel after one missed approach....
@coryrood Again, you don't know how long the flight took beyond flight plan, or if more fuel was burned, or any other factor. Did they fly lower than planned the whole way? Also, it is entirely possible the planned weather didn't require more fuel.
I don't have a full picture on weather at KBDL - with all the mistakes on altitude and frequency readbacks, and deciding to go KBOS on min fuel instead of attempting another approach, I find myself somewhat questioning the pilot's competency. Is it just me?
It’s you. There are two pilots on this commercial aircraft. The captain has final say as to whether they divert or not. We have no way of knowing if the captain was the one working the radio or flying the aircraft. Thus, the actions taken may have been made by two different people.
A min fuel declaration is not an emergency. Its simply letting ATC know that they cannot accept holding or delay vectors without burning into their reserve fuel. If it was an emergency fuel situation the pilot would have diverted to PVD or accepted 33L approach.
BOS has a large Delta operation so a diversion there would be better handled than at a smaller station like PVD which doesnt have as many gates or staff to handle an unplanned arrival.
Unlike other weather phenomena, non convective windshear is very tricky to deal with in terms of making decision to attempt the approach again. Visibility, cross winds, thunderstorms and braking action are usually well reported values with well defined limitations. Windshear is simply an alert and theres no real way to know whether you will encounter enough of it or not on the approach to generate a go-around alert. If the windshear was not convectively induced, trying the approach again is major risk to take and will likely result in another go-around with even less fuel to work with.
Great story, truth of the matter is they didnt program the MCDU properly after the missed approach and they received a minimum fuel message since the activated missed approach procedure puts the fuel calculations into an indefinite hold resulting in a lower rem fuel than initially programmed. Had they properly reviewed the legs page they wouldve been able make a second approach or loiter until the windshear passed through. Otherwise, the only reason they would get a minimum fuel situation from a single missed approach is if they flew so far beyond their calculated fuel burn from MSP by constantly lowering their reserve fuel number in the MCDU without dispatch noticing. The weather wasn't even a concern for them as they nonchalantly continued after the PIREP from the preceding aircraft was provided. They werent in a minimum fuel situation-its just what happens to inexperienced crews.
I only fly VFR but I recognize all the voices on Bradley ATC.
Let's see: weather may have been bad a PVD. Probably more runway options at BOS. Crew base at BOS. Maint base at BOS. More ground staff at BOS to deal with unhappy passengers.
PIREP they said "...copy the PIREP" for the winds on landing.
Pilot report
I wonder if this was a dispatcher error, or pilot calculation error. Obviously, an airliner shouldnt be min fuel after 1 go around. Min fuel is not an emergency, but is a priority for handling purposes.
pilot in command is responsible and also has final authority to decide amount of fuel.
You cant be minimum fuel and ask for priority handling direct to a diversion airport that. Thats only something you can do in an emergency...
Why go to boston .westover afb civilian aircraft allowed. Barns airport has 7000. Worcester airport or Hanscom field in bedford mass barnes and westover are just north of Hartford Bradley field.
reminds me of the trick ryan air (or some other low cost caririer) did . In order to save on fuel they would file a closer destination then divert to there real destination en route.
This happened to me many years ago. It was Northwest Airlines then. They tried twice to land on RWY 24 but we were almost sideways the last time sowe went to Boston. Landed there about 1 am. No offer of a shuttle to BDL, we were on our own so I offered to rent a car if anyone would pay their share. Two others jumped on the chance. I was pretty tired when i got to BDL so I took a nap in my car before going home. NWA never offered any type of compensation.
Well, that day sucked 🤦🏼♀️
Was the car journey with stranger fun 😂
Minimum fuel is not a big deal, but he has serious problems with altitudes.
5:29 My goodness!
I’m guessing you’ve never been in a stressful task-saturated situation while flying.
Aviate first.
@@jasons5915 airline pilot.
Should have confirmed with the tower that he was minimum fuel.
As an ignorant airplane nerd can I ask; if they meet the mins for Bradley, wouldn’t Norwood, or even TF Green be a better option if they’re declaring min fuel?
Norwood doesnt take airliners, thats all small aircraft.
Also TF Green and Norwood wouldn’t be any closer, it isnt like driving a car because by car all those airports seem really far from each other. In a plane theres no traffic or red lights, so Norwood is probably a 5 minute flight from norwood
Worcester or Hanscom field
Sounds pretty shaky to me. I wonder how he explained this to the company.
Minimum fuel, but an abundance of missed calls. 🥴
Is “minimum fuel” different in the USA than in the rest of the world?
Why divert to Boston and not Worcester?
ORH has no Delta operations there.
I was thinking the same since Delta services the airport once a day. Guess it's because Logan is more equipped.
they didn’t have enough fuel for one go around??
Yeah, this is suspicious. We comply with FARs for IFR Part 121 operations, then add "contingency" fuel above that. Also, the Captain has discretion to always add more before departure, if within weight and performance limits.
They had enough fuel for two go arounds, and a diversion. They had fuel in the tanks when they landed.
@@timduggan1461 Also, the Captain has discretion to declare min fuel.
@@timduggan1461 Smart pilots do not push to the limits.
maybe afraid of more wind shear with even less fuel?
Likely someone at United siphoned fuel to save a few bucks
Mayday?
If they had a bit of delay they would probably declared.
What about Worcester? Delta flies out of it. He just wanted to see the sites.
I asked same question. Worcester is a smaller airport that pilot might not have ever landed at before.
Yikes
Unless they were in a 30 minute to 1 hour long holding pattern in Connecticut, I don’t understand why, one: they had no alternate, or two: why they did not have enough fuel! Aren’t these planes supposed to carry enough fuel for both their journey and a certain amount of time for possible flight redirect for weather and enough fuel to get them to their alternate???
If the weather is good enough, no alternate is required.
Wouldn’t it be easier to try again at the original airport than diverting? What did I miss? Was it an ongoing weather issue?
If they try again at the original airport and have windshear again which results in another go around, the fuel situation would be worse rather then just diverting after one attempt to ensure they have enough fuel to land at an airport with good weather
Wind shear can last for hours.
The winds at Bradley were quite strong and unlikely to get better on a second try. They needed to divert.
Nope. Think about it
It didn't sound like they actually HAD min fuel. It sounded like they chose to declare min fuel to get a more direct routing. Maybe they were low, and trying to avoid a problem but I don't think they actually were at min fuel.
Why go all the way to boston if they are that tight on fuel? Worcester and Providence are closer.
Familiarity, longer runways, better crash response.
Runway is longer, Delta has a large operations there, perhaps there was weather and Boston was in the clear. If it was a dire situation I guess they could have diverted to HVN, but I also get the suspicion that the pilot may have been a little fast with the "min fuel" call because ATC were planning on extending a bit to get in with the flow. One attempt at BDL should not result in min fuel that quickly unless there was a lengthy ground hold at the departure airport or before making the final approach.
@@mtk52983 Delta uses the A319 at Providence now.
@@mtk52983 Or head winds.
BOS was likely their planned alternate and the distance difference is a rounding error. Also, it can be easier to work in with airspace.
I wonder what the planned alternate airport was. Pilot seems stressed at BDL. Thanks as always for sharing these.
Stressed by wind shear. It smashes airplanes into the ground.
Windshear is stressful, especially in a turbofan that takes time to spool up in response to a thrust input.
Pilot said there was no filed alternate. So none.
Who’s got a girlfriend in Boston?!? Don’t even know why he flew the missed lol
Probably bad weather forecast.
How do you hear 5,000 and think you heard 15,000?? Some screws are loose somewhere.
If you mishear a "one" it sounds like "one-five"
Wait a minute! "Didn't have an alternate"? How can that be on an IFR flight plan? New Haven or Bridgeport are closer. Is someone going to be invited to visit the chief pilot?
Bridgeport is too short for an A319. New Haven could theoretically handle the A319 on empty tanks but like Worcester is not a Delta Operation. They are Avelo and soon to add Breeze
I'm just a dumb passenger, but having to declare min fuel after 1 missed approach and before getting to your diversion seems pretty short.
Actually, you aren't "dumb". The FARs are clear about fuel requirements for dispatch on IFR flight plans, especially Part 121 operations.
The Captain coordinates with Dispatch at their departure airport, and "agree" on the fuel load. The Captain has absolute authority to over-ride the Dispatcher. We add fuel when we think we need it, for added safety buffer.
What were the headwinds an deviations in getting to the original destination. When in doubt declare min fuel.
You don't know the amount of fuel they burned en route. Also, the lower altitude caused them to burn more fuel than expected.
@@N1120A They were stating their fuel issues as soon as they had to execute their wind shear maneuver. Like I said, I'm just a dumb passenger, but I think I'd prefer having a bit more fuel on board so we aren't worried about fuel after one missed approach....
@coryrood Again, you don't know how long the flight took beyond flight plan, or if more fuel was burned, or any other factor. Did they fly lower than planned the whole way? Also, it is entirely possible the planned weather didn't require more fuel.
Get that final controller an Archie league award 🎉
I don't have a full picture on weather at KBDL - with all the mistakes on altitude and frequency readbacks, and deciding to go KBOS on min fuel instead of attempting another approach, I find myself somewhat questioning the pilot's competency. Is it just me?
It’s 100% just you. Nothing wrong with diverting to Boston.
competency no. judgement?
It’s you. There are two pilots on this commercial aircraft. The captain has final say as to whether they divert or not. We have no way of knowing if the captain was the one working the radio or flying the aircraft. Thus, the actions taken may have been made by two different people.
Thanks for the replies - I was on the fence here - never heard so many incorrect readbacks to ATC in a high workload situation
Better to be pro-active and get out of a bad situation than stick around and get "behind the airplane"