Flights sometimes take longer than planned, and that’s why airlines always have fuel reserves, planned diversion points, etc. The aviation industry operates with an incredible focus on having a safety margin, but sometimes things don’t go as planned. Along those lines, a Ryanair flight recently had what can only be described as a very close call.
In this post:
Ryanair flight has incredibly stressful 110-minute diversion
The Aviation Herald has the story of what happened on Friday, October 3, 2025, involving Ryanair flight FR3418. The flight was operated by a Malta Air (Ryanair subsidiary) Boeing 737-800 with the registration code 9H-QBD, and it was scheduled to operate from Pisa, Italy (PSA), to Prestwick, Scotland (PIK).
Long story short, the plane landed way below minimum fuel, but there’s a lot more to the story. This all happened during Storm Amy, which saw winds approaching 100 miles per hour in many parts of England. So here’s how this played out:
- The plane was supposed to land on runway 20 at Prestwick, but had to perform a go around due to weather
- The aircraft then entered a holding pattern, and then attempted another landing on the same runway around 30 minutes after the initial landing attempt, but had to perform a go around again
- The aircraft then entered another holding pattern, and 10 minutes later, the crew decided to divert to Edinburgh (EDI)
- The aircraft attempted to land on runway 24 at Edinburgh around 60 minutes after the initial go around, but had to go around again
- The aircraft then diverted to Manchester (MAN), where the aircraft finally landed around 110 minutes after the initial go around
In the end, the plane was in the air for a total of 4hr23min, which is way longer than the typical 2hr20min journey for this 1,054-mile flight.
It’s being reported that the plane landed with a total of 220 kilograms of fuel remaining, with 100 kilograms in the left engine, and 120 kilograms in the right engine. For what it’s worth, the plane’s overall fuel capacity is around 21,000 kilograms, so its available fuel at the time of landing was just over 1% of the total capacity.
The Air Accidents Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is now reviewing the incident. In a statement, Ryanair claims that it has “reported this to the relevant authorities,” and “as this is now subject of an ongoing investigation, which we are cooperating fully with, we are unable to comment.”
This incident was minutes from being a disaster
With just 220 kilograms of fuel remaining, this flight was maybe five minutes from running out of fuel. The amount of time remaining might have actually been much smaller than that, given that a go around can burn a lot more fuel, with the engines spooling up.
So this was a very, very close call, and in aviation, you certainly don’t hope to find yourself in a situation where you basically have one shot at a landing. I can’t imagine how stressed the pilots must have been about the landing in Manchester.
Just for some context on how serious this was, an aircraft would usually declare a fuel emergency when a flight is predicted to land with less than its mandated final reserve fuel, which is typically sufficient for 30 minutes of flight time. So what happened here was way beyond just being a fuel emergency.
None of us were there, so it’s hard to know where this all went wrong, but I’m sure an investigation will reveal all those details. Obviously a flight should never get to the point where it has just minutes of fuel remaining. However, what should’ve been done differently? Should more fuel have been loaded, should the pilots have mad the decision to divert earlier, or what?
Bottom line
A Ryanair Boeing 737 came within minutes of running out of fuel, after it had to fly for an additional 110 minutes after performing its first go around. This incident happened during a storm, as the plane was first scheduled to land in Prestwick, then the decision was made to divert to Edinburgh, and then the decision was made to divert to Manchester.
Fortunately the plane landed safely in the end, but with just 220 kilograms of fuel remaining, they had only minutes to spare.
What do you make of this Ryanair close call?
And this is why storms can cause preemptive flight cancellations - to prevent the risk of exactly this happening.
Of course Ryanair were the ones flying into a storm and evidently being overly determined to land at the scheduled airport. Dislocated planes and crew cause costs, and it's their entire MO to reduce those as far as possible... And, apparently, further.
AAIB is Air Accident Investigation Branch (not Bureau).
Several years ago I read Ryanair always flew with minimal fuel for cost efficiency reasons ( weight of fuel etc) . If one googles you will see articles criticizing this airline for this. One day it will be a real disaster for reasons like this I suppose. I still fly them because they’ve never had an incident yet and cheap for a short flight.
When in holding check your alternate weather. They left holding then; 1. visually checked their alternate then 2. Declared fuel emergency then 3. easy straight in to Manchester. The luck of the Irish saved the poor planning!!!
I live in Edinburgh and drove to Glasgow in the midst of this storm on Friday night. The wind and rain were bad but the gusts were utterly insane. Had several moments where staying in lane on the motorway took all my physical strength as the car was just being pushed horizontally 2-3m at a time. I’d stab a guess the gusts were just insane here.
That being said gusts up to 100mph were advised...
I live in Edinburgh and drove to Glasgow in the midst of this storm on Friday night. The wind and rain were bad but the gusts were utterly insane. Had several moments where staying in lane on the motorway took all my physical strength as the car was just being pushed horizontally 2-3m at a time. I’d stab a guess the gusts were just insane here.
That being said gusts up to 100mph were advised 4 days in advance so it shouldn’t have been a surprise.
In terms of questions of diversion airport id suggest MAN was selected as it was outside the storm path and other northern airports risks another go around and then no forth option. Fuel to land and go around is way higher than during flight.
That said. Squeaky bum time.
Humans, bloody hell.
Being Ryanair, you can bet O'Leary will tweet that it was all the pax fault (and he'll mean it too).
I think he'll say that the government better compensate Ryanair for the expense of flying to airports that have this kind of bad weather, or they'll pull out of the country.
What should have been done, considering the extreme wind conditions at the landing site, was to have delayed or cancelled the flight at its starting point.
So it landed with 82 gallons or 485lbs of fuel. Amazing.
Long time US major airline dispatcher. First for domestic flights reserve fuel is 45 minutes. I don’t know what the TAF and METAR were but I would have had two alternates, with one being a solid one, good TAF and METAR. Together with the captain I would have come up with a plan that hopefully would have avoided this situation, including landing enroute if the situation called for it. If the situation deteriorated enroute I...
Long time US major airline dispatcher. First for domestic flights reserve fuel is 45 minutes. I don’t know what the TAF and METAR were but I would have had two alternates, with one being a solid one, good TAF and METAR. Together with the captain I would have come up with a plan that hopefully would have avoided this situation, including landing enroute if the situation called for it. If the situation deteriorated enroute I would have urged the flight to divert or land enroute. If they went missed at PIK I would have strongly recommended diverting rather than holding. I would have figured out their fuel numbers and make sure the crew understood the situation. I don’t know the pressure Ryan Air pilots operate under but in 30 years of dispatching I never saw a flight land with that little fuel on board.
You’re exactly right. This blogger is an aviation fan not an operations guy. You and I both know this story is BS but what’s the point of trying to correct.
good summary.
Ryanair does have a pretty good safety culture so I am not sure that there is as much operational pressure as some might presume.
All pilots understand that aeronautical governing bodies can and do have the potential to come after pilot licenses with far greater impact than what could happen to a company - so the incentive is to do what is best from the perspective of the pilot.
It is most likely...
good summary.
Ryanair does have a pretty good safety culture so I am not sure that there is as much operational pressure as some might presume.
All pilots understand that aeronautical governing bodies can and do have the potential to come after pilot licenses with far greater impact than what could happen to a company - so the incentive is to do what is best from the perspective of the pilot.
It is most likely that the pilots simply waited too long to pull the ripcord and get out of that part of the country and to an area where they could safely land.
A couple of missed approaches and a diversion is all most fuel planning prepares for - not missed approaches, holding and then a diversion.
Ben, did the pilots declare a fuel emergency? It's unclear because you don't say specifically whether they did or not (unless I missed it).
If they did declare a fuel emergency, I'm not sure what else could have been done.
If they didn't, the question becomes, were the pilots aware of the low fuel situation (and just somehow didn't have time to declare it)? Or were they oblivious to it? And if so, why?
Important fact to know. If they did not, that's very concerning.
Ben, a minor detail but the fuel remaining would have been in the wing tanks, not held in the engines.
This is especially interesting because nearly a third of their total flight time in holding was conducted at 3-10,000 feet, where engines burn MUCH more fuel than at cruise altitude. This indicates they loaded more than enough fuel for multiple diversion points. I wasn’t there, but I wonder how much pressure they were under (if...
Ben, a minor detail but the fuel remaining would have been in the wing tanks, not held in the engines.
This is especially interesting because nearly a third of their total flight time in holding was conducted at 3-10,000 feet, where engines burn MUCH more fuel than at cruise altitude. This indicates they loaded more than enough fuel for multiple diversion points. I wasn’t there, but I wonder how much pressure they were under (if any) from the company to land at their intended destination, leading to the long hold at EDI. Diversions in non-emergency situations, typically have a back-and-forth with dispatchers. FR has been criticized in the past for trying to undermine-load fuel, but this appears to be more of a problem with crew decision making than anything else.
Under-load fuel, not undermine. :|
@ Timtramtrak; Fuel load, amongst others is ALWAYS a decision of the flight crew!
Pre-departure, fuel is a collaboration with the flight dispatcher and the crew, but after takeoff fuel management is the sole responsibility of the pilots.
It's important to remember, though, that Charlie Kirk rejected the idea that climate change posed an existential threat to humanity, describing it as “complete gibberish, nonsense and balderdash” in December 2024 to members of Turning Point UK,
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
It would be interesting to know if similar aircraft were having similar problems landing at EDI & MAN around the same time that this flight was having issues.
If there were numerous diversions & go arounds due to aircraft having trouble landing safely due to storm Amy (around the time that this flight was attempting to land) that would suggest some very bad luck. If, however, other similar-sized aircraft were continuing to land without...
It would be interesting to know if similar aircraft were having similar problems landing at EDI & MAN around the same time that this flight was having issues.
If there were numerous diversions & go arounds due to aircraft having trouble landing safely due to storm Amy (around the time that this flight was attempting to land) that would suggest some very bad luck. If, however, other similar-sized aircraft were continuing to land without having to go around or divert, wouldn't that bring into question the crew's competence?
Lufthansa and Norwegian both diverted flights from Edinburgh the same day
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-flights-diverted-storm-amy-32609365
The weather was pretty rough, the storm was worst than we expected. With hindsight, Manchester would've have been a better first choice as EDI, ABZ, GLA, PIK and Belfast all had it pretty bad.
I think the more important question might be how early did other diversions happen as well. With the conditions what they were, I’m a little surprised how often the crew tried to land/put into holding patterns over their intended destination instead of diverting much, much, earlier, when it was apparent how bad the weather was. At the latest, after one go around.
Newcastle and Leeds Bradford would have been closer but maybe not affected by the wind?
A butterfly flapping it's wings near LBA is enough to make landing difficult. Humberside might have been an option but unsure what the weather was like there. Certainly where I live (in North Yorkshire) it was horrific.
I'm not too familiar with UK airports but was there nothing in between that could have given them a shorter diversion, or was the weather covering everything in between Glasgow and Manchester where going to the latter would give them a better chance at landing then going to say Newcastle and risk another go around?
Didn't realize how big Storm Amy was either..
It was bad. Over the years it’s definitely become worse, with climate change. Coming from
the Atlantic they tend to take a trajectory over Scotland and then down over the North Sea towards the Netherlands. Amsterdam has far more wind events and air traffic restrictions nowadays than several years ago.
The weather was very bad in the north/ Scotland and across the Netherlands with gusts of over 100km/h , however the south east was spared. There are multiple airports such as Teesside, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Leeds is especially prone to high wind given the geography. The viewpoint of a 737 pilot would be helpful here.
Cant a plane glide when it runs out of fuel? I remember an incident where a BA 747 glided when both engines failed due to volcanic ash.
@ Andy -- Yes, sort of, but when you're at a low altitude, you don't have much vertical space between the plane and earth...
Plus the weather that day was VILE! You want full engine availability.
That's one of the reasons I never flew FR and will never fly them.
It’s not really Ryanair per se. It was a combination of factors caused by an extreme weather event. To give them their dues they carried almost 200 million passengers last year. I’ve flown them many times and always found them to be efficient.
One tech delay and comp was paid within 10 days.
I’ve also flown Concorde, AF La premiere and QR Qsuites, had delays and diversions on several carriers including a similar...
It’s not really Ryanair per se. It was a combination of factors caused by an extreme weather event. To give them their dues they carried almost 200 million passengers last year. I’ve flown them many times and always found them to be efficient.
One tech delay and comp was paid within 10 days.
I’ve also flown Concorde, AF La premiere and QR Qsuites, had delays and diversions on several carriers including a similar event many years ago.
FR flight crew are as highly qualified as any other carrier. In fact the last captain I chatted with in with had previously worked for BA for many years.
Admittedly it’s also a shock when you consider the amount of fuel left in this case
Nelson you are correct. Ryan Air loads limited fuel on its planes
From Google Ai overview:
Ryanair is known for loading limited fuel due to its cost-saving strategy, though it must always meet minimum safety requirements. This has resulted in past incidents where flights have had to make emergency landings due to low fuel, and recent events have shown a flight was within minutes of running out of fuel.
Every airline does this. No airline will completely load a plane to completely full tanks unless it's absolutely required. It doesn't make economic sense to do so for any airline.
@ Dylan;
It's clear that you don't know much about Airliners. Some Airlines even load up for a return flight.
Nelson, Dylan is right. Airlines won’t tanker unless they need to (e.g. fueling issues at the destination airport). No airline in the world is ‘loading up for return flights’ as a matter of policy. It’s only as Dylan puts when ‘absolutely necessary’.
@ Nelson;
"It's clear that you don't know much about Airliners." Fuel costs money to carry. NO major airline is sitting there filling every plane to the top like it's a pickup truck, not to mention the problem of max landing weights. Airlines will only bring return to places fuel is unavailable or so expensive it's cheaper to tanker the fuel partially or fully.
But what influence should reality have when you can be...
@ Nelson;
"It's clear that you don't know much about Airliners." Fuel costs money to carry. NO major airline is sitting there filling every plane to the top like it's a pickup truck, not to mention the problem of max landing weights. Airlines will only bring return to places fuel is unavailable or so expensive it's cheaper to tanker the fuel partially or fully.
But what influence should reality have when you can be confidently incorrect because you just *don't like* an airline?
Amen...I would never fly on this airline, I just don't hate myself enough!