New Delhi: For the first time, two Indian carriers, Air India and IndiGo, operated trial flights between Delhi and Hyderabad on 29 April without carrying the excess fuel that they would need if the flight was diverted away from its destination due to an emergency.
The step has been taken under a fuel conservation and emission reduction initiative jointly taken up by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Air Traffic Control, the Indian Meteorological Department, and four airlines — Air India, IndiGo, Spicejet and AirAsia.
Among the reasons is the rising price of Aviation Turbine Fuel — as of 1 May, the price per kilolitre (1,000 litres) in New Delhi is Rs 65,067.85, a 12 per cent increase over the mark of Rs 58,060.97 on 1 February. The prices are revised every month, according to the Indian Oil Corporation website. There are also environmental considerations behind this initiative.
Current regulations
Current regulations require every flight to have an alternate route plan, and carry enough fuel to fly to the destination and the alternate.
This means the aircraft carries additional fuel back and forth, which is redundant if there is no diversion. And the heavier the aircraft, the higher the fuel consumption.
Also read: Air India now has 4 Boeing 777s grounded, because it doesn’t have money to maintain them
The new system
To ensure eco-friendly flight initiatives, the International Civil Aviation Organisation had recommended moving from prescriptive regulation (where a regulator tells airlines what to do and how to do it) to performance-based regulation (where the regulator defines the outcome but leaves the question of ‘how to get there’ to the airlines).
The ‘dispatch with no destination alternate’ system used by Air India and IndiGo for their Delhi-Hyderabad flights comes under this umbrella. It permits carriers to operate services without filing an alternate destination and carrying excess fuel to fly to that destination, provided that the original destination airport has two or more runways, there are fair weather conditions and a 5-km visibility when the plane is one hour away from the destination.
A spokesperson for IndiGo said: “This initiative will help us save 2,100 tonnes of ATF while reducing carbon emissions by 6,615 tonnes per year. On this Delhi-Shamshabad (the location of Hyderabad’s Rajiv Gandhi International Airport) flight, we will save at least 150 kg of fuel. We plan to operate seven trial flights on different routes.”
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Air India said: “With Air India having close to 15 flights daily to Shamshabad, the quantum of fuel savings would be huge.”
The spokesperson pointed out that the fuel requirement under the new rule was about four tonnes less than before, while the reduction in fuel consumption was about 140 kg.
Experts say it’s a risk
Saj Ahmad, chief analyst for StrategicAero Research, said the decision to fly with no added fuel for diversions poses a risk.
“This can only be mitigated by flying with a less full cabin and payload, which means a lighter airplane. That would translate into a lower fuel burn, so that if a diversion is needed, there would be enough fuel to compensate,” Ahmad said.
“Whether this strategy is sustainable in itself is questionable, and indeed raises further questions about airlines’ fuel strategies and other cost-related management.”
Asked if airlines would pass on the cost savings from this system to the passengers, Ahmad said that it was unlikely.
Meanwhile, Amit Singh, IndiGo’s head of training and AirAsia’s former head of operations and safety, said it wasn’t a workable solution for every flight.
“Not all airports have two alternate runways, and weather conditions are unpredictable,” said Singh.
Mark Martin, founder and CEO of aviation consultancy firm Martin Consulting, raised questions about the safety aspect. “If you have to go from place A to place B and if you cannot land at place B, then you should have enough fuel to land at place C. In my view, this provision is not a fool-proof method to ensure safety,” Martin said.
“For such a thing to happen, you need to have alternate airports around your destination, but Delhi and Mumbai have just one airport each. Having an airport about 20 nautical miles or 40 km from the destination airport should be sufficient.”
Captain Mohan Ranganathan, a former Boeing 737 instructor pilot, added: “The provision of operating flights without a destination alternate should only be permitted if the destination airport has precision approaches (ILS) and a parallel runway — cross runways are not acceptable as, if one runway is blocked near the intersection, neither runway will be available.
“It should not be permitted at destinations where there are regular air traffic delays. Also, it should be permitted only if the visibility is marginal. A blanket clearance should never be permitted.”
According to a source in a private airline, international carriers do not practice this system.
Also read: Inside story of why DGCA is conducting a safety audit of Indigo’s A320neo Airbus planes
Had flying without extra fuel been an option it would not have been put there in the first place. Some analyst suggested that flights going for this should fly with less full cabin and payload. I doubt airlines would do that. So first come up with some solid solutions to mitigate the risks and then talk about it.
Another hare brained idea at the cost of the lives of passengers and the aircraft itself. Enough of jugaad style management in the country. It shows the reigning flavour of management in the country – impulsive, high handed, arbitrary and self congratulatory without application of well rounded discussions and deliberation. It’s a dangerous trend and must not be allowed. Let experts also have a say in such decision making process for safety and overall managerial competence.
Firstly the entire article is flawed. I have read the entire Notice on this and it’s only applicable for flights into Hyderabad . They do carry extra fuel for unforseen circumstances. They don’t nominate an alternate airport because Hyderabad has two operational parallel runways at all times. But extra fuel is carried and moreover it’s only applicable if the weather at destination (Hyderabad) is more than 6 km visibility along with clear skies. It’s perfectly safe.
This practice is fine in summer where the destination aerodrome has 2 runways operational or one aerodrome nearby but should not be excercised in rainy and winter foggy conditions as at those time the aircraft will have to divert to alternate aerodrome DGCA should look and note this .
Really scary. Disappointed that human life is not a priority.
In other words, to save ~Rs.10k per flight or ~$140, they’re willing to risk the total loss of a ~$100M aircraft, with all crew and passengers aboard. That is the brilliancy of the new era of Monkey-Jugaad for India. Good luck to the kids!
This is not at all an option to savings. They can do a lot of savings other than risking passengers life. There has to be other way around. We know that it’s not six sigma when it comes to weather. Anything can happen to weather. Every flight should carry extra fuel for alternate landing.
Is this some kind of bizarre thought from the top? Where from the related parties got the audacity to play with the life risk of passengers? What if there are some unusual developments in the climate and at destination airport at the time of landing? Who will save the lives of the passengers then given there is no way to reach alternate airport and landing is impossible? For whom these less carbon emission and environmental hazards and blah blah are being doled out? Not for the dead I assume. This is NOT acceptable. We are not puppets that some illogical , whimsical decisions will snap out our lives , we have families and responsibilities that may seem trivial to those at the top but not to the rest.
Totally against the humanity to save money at the cost of life…DGCA SHOULDN’T ALLOW THIS.
In my opinion it’s workable for Indigo airlines, because there aircraft’s engines are stop working in mid air and they are savings the ATF and is carrying surplus fuel. It only worries for other airlines.
I think there is no logic in saving fuel at the cost of passengers life while they are paying for safe journey. Plane must carry extra fuel to meet emergency due to climating or other reason. Why we are so concious for saving if we can’t effort fuel we should switch over to old bullcart age
Pushing the envelope. The DGCA should not allow this. Human life cannot be priced in as a variable.