Can Planes Just Run Out of Gas?

By Ed Magnuson

Every frequent flyer knows the frustration of circling interminably in bad weather, often bouncing in turbulence and unable to see much beyond the murk outside the windows. After the crash of Avianca Flight 52, which killed 73 passengers just 15 miles short of New York's Kennedy International Airport on Jan. 25, travelers have a disturbing new question to ponder while they wait: Is the plane running out of fuel?

The Boeing 707 had been delayed fully 89 minutes in various holding patterns on its scheduled five-hour flight from Medellin, Colombia, to New York. Bad weather had stalled 248 other planes heading for Kennedy that day; in the two hours before the Avianca disaster, 33 pilots chose to land at other airports. The Avianca crew reported it did not have enough fuel to reach its designated alternate, Boston. Apparently because of high winds and low clouds, the plane missed its first landing attempt at Kennedy. It crashed on its second approach when all four engines failed, almost certainly for lack of fuel.

Human error is likely to be cited when investigators complete their probe of the accident. They must determine if enough fuel was loaded in Colombia in the first place. Under international regulations an airliner must carry enough fuel to reach its destination as well as its assigned alternate, plus enough extra to handle at least 45 minutes of delays.

Once in the air, the flight engineer must calculate the plane's fuel consumption mathematically and monitor gauges that show the rate of consumption and the level in each of the aircraft's tanks. Circling at low ; altitudes, as Flight 52 did, consumes more fuel than normal cruising, possibly throwing off the engineer's calculations, though not the gauges. Another source of trouble could have been the 707's abrupt climb after the aborted landing. Aviation experts say this could have sloshed what remained of the fuel to the back of the tanks, where the fuel pumps cannot reach it.

There is no doubt that the Avianca pilot, a 17-year veteran, knew he had a fuel problem, although it is uncertain if he understood its extent. Investigators are focusing on whether the crew adequately conveyed its concerns to regional air controllers and whether these controllers passed the information on to the local controllers. Tapes reveal that the Avianca crew informed the regional center that its fuel was insufficient to reach Boston, but this information apparently was not relayed in the "hand-off" between controllers. Still, the pilot did not object when the plane was then placed on a routine approach to Kennedy that, because of heavy traffic, took 38 minutes.

A simple declaration of "emergency" would have put the plane on a fast track for landing. But airline pilots, partly out of pride and the certainty of a follow-up investigation, are often reluctant to take that step. "Complacency in the cockpit, failure to recognize and deal with hazards, is the most dangerous threat to air safety," says Jerome Lederer, an internationally known expert on the subject.

Though the Avianca crash will doubtless make nervous flyers even more jittery, experts say the odds of a similar accident happening are not great. A flow-control system tightened after the 1981 air controllers' strike has reduced circling time near U.S. airports by requiring more weather delays to be spent on the ground. Fuel shortages turn to catastrophe only if crews do not notice or clearly declare their predicament. Said C.O. Miller, former chief aviation-accident investigator at the National Transportation Safety Board: "The Avianca crew apparently failed to recognize or perceive the immensity of the problem." In the aftermath, that error is not likely to be repeated by other airline crews running perilously low on fuel.

With reporting by Richard Behar/New York and Jerry Hannifin/Washington