(EK) Disciplined for carrying fuel? [Archive]

screwballburling

31st Mar 2010, 04:15

I have throughout my career, carried the fuel I wish to carry, "within reason". The Captain has and always will have, the discretion to carry more fuel should he/she so wish I believe.

I will continue to carry extra fuel if I consider it prudent to do so. The company I work for is aware of this. If they are not happy with that, they of course will replace me.So far I still have employment but I have not however had an expensive diversion over fuel issues, for e.g., for many, many years.

Fortunately I am in a branch of aviation where I am not treated like a complete robot, therefore allowed to think for myself once in a while.

troff

31st Mar 2010, 04:26

Lucky you, Screwball.
Our beancounters will not be happy until we have one engine flameout while taxiing in...

desertflyer

31st Mar 2010, 04:48

Refile flight plans have been around for over 30 years. People's Express Airline used to use them from Newark to West Palm when the planes were full and fuel was tight. They used to file to Jacksonville Fla., then if all went well and they didn't need an alternate, refile to West Palm. Purely a means to get the customer where they want to go in a timely fashion when business is GOOD!:ok: I'm sure the the People's Express customers appreciated getting where they wanted to go WITH their underwear!:O

canadansk

31st Mar 2010, 05:25

I have been flying for EK for nearly 19 years and have never once been asked to explain why I took extra fuel. If I think I/we (FO has a say in this decision as well) need extra fuel I/we take it, and if I/we feel that CFP fuel is correct for the sector I don't - this is all they ask!

hotcurry

31st Mar 2010, 08:56

You know I have nothing against refilling a plan to be more efficient, however let’s do it correctly then.

On our plans now we are planning to fly to DXB with decision being made abeam Kuwait. Now my understanding of it all is that if that’s the case then destination should be filed as Kuwait and then we should re-dispatch to DXB? Is it not?

Once again if fuel is needed, then take it.

Secondly, whats this about pickups and fines etc....
Oh and by the way, I recon the only way we could be "late" for pickup is if we've overslept or just got it totally wrong, which I have done before, cos the 20 Mins we allowed is ample time to rush through the "pre-departure" formalities.

Sleep tight

Wacked

31st Mar 2010, 11:05

Desertflyer there are plenty of old bad ideas. Refiling enroute is one of them. If fuel to destination plus holding plus diversion is the safest way, then it is the safest way regardless of the customers underwear. I'm sure he would rather leave his packed underwear behind for a day than leave the ones he's wearing hanging from a smoldering tree half a mile short of the runway.

If its safe to do refiling sometimes then its safe to do all the time, If its not its not.

mensaboy

31st Mar 2010, 11:30

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the SFO-DXB flight the one that repeatedly experiences a problem with the LIDO flight plan regarding estimated fuel burn? (in the range of two tonnes).

If so, that Capt should have got a NAJM award and not some disciplinary action. What a bunch of clowns we have running the show here!

5star

31st Mar 2010, 12:13

I suspect this is indeed related to the DXB -SFO- DXB trips.

I thought they learned their lesson in dispatch after we had a few too many diversions using DPP on this sector. Everyone flying the T7 knows that the burn is ALWAYS 2T more than planned. Have you ever seen what all these Indy pax bring on board with them? Indeed count on a TOW that is a few tons more than on paper...

In the western world, one would adjust the fuelburn for this trip. Not here ofcourse... No brains.
It is verys simple for me: If they try to dispatch me via DPP to SFO then cargo/bags will be kicked off. And btw. no problem : get T&B ready so I can kick some @55es.
5star

desertflyer

31st Mar 2010, 12:21

Wacked, thank goodness you weren't in the cockpit of the UnitedDC-10 that lost all hydraulics and the guys got it onto the tarmac with no flight controls and only thrust.....never been done before. Bad idea? Ask the folks who survived. While REFILING is not a cure-all for every situation, it is another tool to put into the kit to use when appropriate to get the customers and their stuff where they want to go in a timely safe fashion. To disregard something you obviously have never tried or used......pretty trite to call it down out of hand. Why is it that all airlines don't have the same training department, FOM, or ops specs? What's the saying about teaching an old dog new tricks? The problem with the SFO flight is the -300ER when fully loaded with UNFAVORABLE FORCAST winds is on the edge. Knowing things can change drastically over a 16 hour flight I would rather have the "option" of refiling and getting to the destination with all the customers and their bags, rather than pissing them off before even pushing back. But, fortunately, the company gives great latitude for the Captain to make the final choice.....aviation....ain't it great!:ok: A common theme on this site is most "complaints or reports" are based on rumor, not fact. Remember the one about guys staying on a couple of months longer at 50% pay raises and no night turns.....NOT:= This would be a great place to exchange ideas.......if they were based on fact. So Wacked, come clean.....have you ever used a "REFILE" flight plan in your career? If so, how did it go? Inquiring minds want to know!:O

ItchyFeet2

31st Mar 2010, 13:41

Just wondering about ethics of refiled flight plan.

It is surely obligatory that the fuel on board will permit the flight to reach the filed destination with all required minima according to forecast weather enroute?

If I understand correctly this would necessitate an original filed flight plan filed to a destination closer than, in this case, DXB, and then making an AFIL enroute.

If the aircraft departs with the filed destination being different to the destination to which the passengers intend to travel via the advertised direct non-stop service, is this a case of deliberately misleading passengers?

Taken to a further level, could this be considered as attempted kidnapping as you have, by filing a flight plan, legally stated that your intention is to bring the passengers to a destination that they do not wish to fly to and there has been no attempt to get their agreement to the rerouting.

Just a thought.

IF2

screwballburling

31st Mar 2010, 14:04

Refiling a flight plan en route, or flight planning with with an "en route alternate" is a recipe for trouble, IMHO. Bit like this "Island hold" nonsense, which maybe "legal" but not necessarily safe.

I am also aware of the term "affordable safety".

Maybe getting air to air refuelling approved for civilian operations might be a viable option. At least until the tanker invoices arrive. :}

Wizofoz

31st Mar 2010, 14:12

Itchy.

That's a real stretch.

Re-file has been used for decades by many very reputable Airlines, Qantas and BA amongst them.

We carry a contingency fuel as part of our overall load, and it varies with route distance.

If, say, a 600KG contingency is safe for Muscat-Dubai when departing there, why is it less so when OVERFLYING muscat en-route from SFO?

It should not mean any increase in risk to the safety of the flight, It DOES increase the likelihood of a diversion short of destination, but that is a commercial risk the company is willing to take.

TangoUniform

31st Mar 2010, 14:19

Refiling or better known as redispatch is used daily by many US airlines heading westbound from Europe. They are origianlly dispatched to some intermediate destination, say BOS, and then redispatched as a "domestic" flight, where the fuel requirements are less than international. Sort of the same as EK in some cases. ATC never knows the difference and doesn't take into account that BOS could be a destination.

Wacked

31st Mar 2010, 16:30

I think you missunderstood me, It is safest to carry flight plan fuel to desired destination(plus extra if needed). I did not say I have never refiled enroute or done critical point planning. I did it in a business jet where if I did'nt, the passenger wasn't going not just his underwear. I also knew this aicraft could be flown at long range cruise and save significant amounts of fuel.

We have all compromised ourselves at some point to the god of commercial pressure but to think it is perfectly safe and normal is self delusion.

Wizofoz

31st Mar 2010, 17:02

It is safest to carry flight plan fuel to desired destination(plus extra if needed).

Wacked,

Why is landing with final reserve, alternate fuel plus a small contingency allowence more safe after a short sector than after a long one, assuming there is a suitable en-route alternate?

That, effectivley, is the result of re-file flightplanning.

woodja51

31st Mar 2010, 19:40

There is absolutely no problem refiling etc to achieve the aim of getting folks and their bags to destination. That is the commercially sensible way to use jets.

But of course that implies that you have the plan that works in the first place.

There have been numerous ( well at least a couple) EK diversions from apparently inaccurate lidos in EK on the SFO route.

I personally know one captain who refused the refile plan , took the extra fuel and less freight etc, and made DXB with just the fuel he legally needed.

And as far as safety is concerned , doing a refile plan that eventually results in a diversion - after say 15 hours flight time, and then being expected to do the refuel, and another take off and landing is arguably more dangerous ( statistically ) than not doing it.

And of course you will be expected to do the extra sector. And even if it is technically legal, after several variation one and twos, a couple of 9 day trips to Oz and a few night turns in your 92 hour monthly roster, I for one would not be happy to have to stop for gas if I didnt have to.

Similarly, the company policy to is to protect the hub - hence why I was told to take 50 tonnes in a T7 on a 1.8 hour flight to Tehran when there was fog forecast back in DXB ( which the met men have been doing to hedge their bets for most days in the last week). Guess better to have it than not but does seem to be an overkill...

Hence the conflicting signals that seem to be sent - fuel the company puts on is good fuel... but fuel that the pilot might want to take is bad fuel to achieve the mission?

Of course I have never been called into the office for extra fuel so I hope that this is just a rumour.

Of course what fuel is actually in the tanks versus what is on the load sheet ( to make it legal) could always be a bit out... and what you write on the OFP is of course another thing... like never fill in the extra and the little indian man that types in what you put there doesn't ever bother the compare the tech log with the OFP min fuel...I am sure you can all work that one out...

It is easy to get your maths wrong after what I just said about 92 hour rosters ). It just depends on what your limit is MTOW or MLW really. Similarly, use of the Max taxi weight versus TOW seems to be a bit light on in this outfit. The extra 1.5 T that you can throw on ,most jets to get to the runway is not oft used in EK - since I have been there at least.

So a few options to keep things on the rails.
Wja

Wizofoz

1st Apr 2010, 03:11

Great post woodja.

I didn't say anything yesterday but, as a day has gone by with no-one supporting either rumour, I think we can assume both the title rumour of the thread, and the 1200DHS for being late as nothing but rumours?

kennedy

1st Apr 2010, 04:24

I don't know about us getting fined for being late for a pickup but the drivers do get fined 200 dits out of their miserly salary for being late to pick us up!

Haven't been disciplined for carrying excess fuel, but got a nasty letter about it last winter! Stated I was in top 10 fuel carriers and they would be monitoring my excess fuel in the future!

Pity they hadn't checked my roster to see why I'd carried the excess fuel, 4 snowy europes and a lax!

'A commander shall ensure that he carries enough fuel and oil to complete the flight safely' straight out of the FOM

Wizofoz

1st Apr 2010, 05:32

kennedy,

Yes, they were pulling that BS. I believe it has stopped.

MTOW

1st Apr 2010, 05:45

The extra 1.5 T that you can throw on ,most jets to get to the runway is not oft used in EK - since I have been there at leastI've used the extra taxi weight more than once on a JFK. Had to, with the ZFW they wanted me to carry.

Plank Cap

1st Apr 2010, 07:00

Kennedy, you are in good company as I too received the rather rude letter suggesting I was in the top ten excess fuel carriers last year. Asking around in my street several of my neighbours also received the same letter - coincidence?! My fuel loading decision making has not changed, nor has the amount I carry. The letter has not subsequently been repeated.

pool

1st Apr 2010, 10:24

I think we can assume both the title rumour of the thread, and the 1200DHS for being late as nothing but rumours?

Unfortunately it's true, Wizofoz. :yuk:

Pitch Up Authority

1st Apr 2010, 12:25

Is EK using JAR-OPS fuel planning or not?

MrMachfivepointfive

1st Apr 2010, 16:42

Yes. Fuel policy is JAR OPS 1.255. Posters who use terms like 're-filing' probably don't work for EK. Its the standard JAR DP procedure.

Time2go

1st Apr 2010, 17:10

The call to the office was for more than just offloading cargo to take the extra fuel..... there is more to the story than that. I know from the crew in question. So before people get their panties in a knot about getting called in and for those of you that always bring stories without first getting the facts correct.... do some homework first... the fuel uplift and cargo offload was only a part of the story :ugh: and is not appropriate to explain on a public forum

pool

1st Apr 2010, 18:06

Time to go

What was it then??

It was definitely not cargo offload.

Wanna brag, then bring in some juice.

Wizofoz

1st Apr 2010, 20:52

Well please do the same, Pooly.

Again, I'm not saying the 1200dhs thing isn't true, but can you point me at any communication or first-hand experience that says it?

woodja51

2nd Apr 2010, 02:10

You are right - doesnt help inflight fuel but some folks think that the MTOW is the push back weight - thus by not adding in the long ish taxi fuel some guys will be cutting them selves short at the gate.. that was what I was trying to allude to... I hope that most chaps are sharper than that but having actually not hit the limits on this one yet.. not sure if the load sheet will run if you put ramp fuel and ZFW such that they exceed MTOW and get a load sheet to run... unless I am bit slow too.??

WJA

Time2go

2nd Apr 2010, 07:27

Not giving specifics but dealt with a conversation between the Captain and the VPNC, at the time, and his arguing about the suitability of the aircraft type on the route and overall operation... all on the freq... the warning was not for fuel . Have you any honestly heard of anyone getting a warning for putting two tons more fuel and offloading cargo ? Come on ! They landed in SFO with 6.4 T , had it not been for the uploaded additional fuel it would have been less that 4. So the decision was correct, the execution of the request was not.

If anyone, including VPNC, asks why u are making a decision just answer the question and not get into an argument, bottom line. Fly your plane , stand by your decision, but don't get into fight :cool:

Also someone up high, has a hard on for the CAP and is looking to make his life difficult:p

MrMachfivepointfive

2nd Apr 2010, 08:55

"They landed in SFO with 6.4 T , had it not been for the uploaded additional fuel it would have been less that 4. So the decision was correct, the execution of the request was not."

Suspicious me... If I had a feeling I would be invited for tea and cookies over extra fuel ... I would make sure I burn it. Li'l bit faster, li'l bit lower, don't accept directs ... but that's just suspicious me.

Not from here

2nd Apr 2010, 11:05

The 1200 dhms is what EK deduct from your salary if you are marked absent,(per day)
Interesting, they used to give us 900 dhms for working a day off, that must be that level playing field again!!!!!!

Gulf News

2nd Apr 2010, 14:28

Suspicious me... If I had a feeling I would be invited for tea and cookies over extra fuel ... I would make sure I burn it. Li'l bit faster, li'l bit lower, don't accept directs ... but that's just suspicious me.

That would be the difference between a professional and and someone who keeps a chair warm in EGHQ. Most Captains in EK will use their knowledge and experience to uplift whatever fuel they deem to be necessary to complete the flight safely in accordance with the fuel policy. If at the end of the day any additional fuel doesn't get used then so be it. All it cost was the additional 3 or so percent to carry it.

M5.5 It would appear that you subscribe to the general UAE/Dubai/Emirates philosophy that if it looks good on paper and statistiics it must be awesome. Sad.That is every thing that is wrong with this place. Everyone is so busy making sure that their patch is clean that the underlying issues are never exposed until it is too late.

Wizofoz

2nd Apr 2010, 14:29

Not from here,

Well, that makes sense. That's a much different thing than being late for transport. Thats not making it to work.

mensaboy

2nd Apr 2010, 16:36

Personally I choose to show up at destination with the most fuel possible so I agree with you on that point Gulf News. But I also understand why someone feels it is more defensible, (in this culture) if they end up at the gate with min fuel, and they were fairly reasonable on their decisions during the flight. It would make it pretty difficult even for our lunatic managers to discipline THAT fuel decision. It all boils down to 'covering your ass' at this airline! It is not about safety at this airline, it is about 'the perception' of safety, much like most other things here.

You mentioned it costs 3% to carry extra fuel? That is not even in the ball-park. On a typical........ say DXB-SYD flight, a Triple7 or Airbus burns almost 50% of the extra fuel it carries.! An extra tonne of fuel equates to only having 500kgs extra fuel upon arrival.

Extra fuel does cost a lot of money and it is smart for this company to focus on that issue but if any 'office' moron questions a wise or even 'mildly conservative' fuel decision by a Commander, then they should be kicked out on their ass. Actually, it is probably fair to say that no office moron should EVER question a Commanders fuel decision and that includes TCAS, AAR (definitely) and without any doubt... ED. And these are the 3 dudes in charge of us, so go figure!

There are only a few things... (TRW's, destination WX below mins, tech faults, serious pax issues and in-flight emergencies), that are worse than showing up at your destination and having to transition to planning another mini-leg to a different airport that you have not been reading about, or planning for the last 10 hours. Throw in the fact that it usually occurs at 0600am after a dreadful night.... because it is not pleasant. Thankfully it has only happened to me once, when my destination closed on short notice and our alternate was reasonably close and suitable. In spite of the fact that everything went brilliantly, I have to admit the 'pucker-factor' was fairly high.

IMHO, EK pilots are quite good at determining the proper fuel upload.

Saltaire

3rd Apr 2010, 03:58

MB, I agree with most of your opinions and I also think most EK pilots make good decisions with regards to fuel uplift. My experience has shown the vast majority only take extra fuel when they feel it's required, and thankfully the company is fairly quiet on that subject.

I especially agree with your safety culture comments, the open door policy feedback loop is almost non-existent and EK is certainly a culture of blame. Why did you do that? What were you thinking? Not HOW did this happen and what can we do to prevent this in the future. It's the most reactive company I've every worked for. Proactive is buried in the desert somewhere...

I think Gulf news probably meant 3% an hour of fuel burn, and it's really closer to 4% an hour. Take a 13 hour flight, 4x13 = 52 and there is your half fuel burn for each extra ton carried.

Time to enjoy one of my 8 days off...

pool

3rd Apr 2010, 04:10

Gents, if you're weight restricted and trade payload for extra fuiel, you will burn the same amount, because you flew with the same weight ..........

Bring Back The Biff

3rd Apr 2010, 05:01

Errr...yes, but you will have the extra fuel instead of cargo at the other end...

M-rat

3rd Apr 2010, 05:01

This fuel thing could be eased a bit by some careful coordination and planning with DXB ATC.

We could keep the loading of extra fuel on ULR to a minimum by having ATC priority for those flights upon their return to DXB. In effect, no holding. We could relax a little on the worries regarding extra fuel on these particular flights. It would perhaps result in a more streamlined operation.

Thoughts?

5star

3rd Apr 2010, 05:17

Haha Pool... funny conclusion but better go straight off to bed after that indian night turn....
Maths.....:}

777boyindubai

3rd Apr 2010, 05:42

M-rat.
What is wrong with you, ya Habibi? Why apply logic and intelligent thought when EK don't respect or value the input of professional people?
The sad reality is that your excellent suggestion didn't come from a "manager". It comes from a pilot. What do they know about flying?
I wonder where our friend mana is? Would welcome his insight into this :yuk:

pool

3rd Apr 2010, 05:58

Errr...yes, but you will have the extra fuel instead of cargo at the other end...

Elementary, Watson! You determined that you needed the extra fuel to have the minimum you want at the other end. That's called fuel planning. With weight critical DPP, unfortunately, this sometimes means offloading payload.

Haha Pool... funny conclusion but better go straight off to bed after that indian night turn....
Maths...

I don't know what's funny about all this. Serious planning implies some payload restriction sometimes.
Without wanting to sound sarcastic, but it seems that some of the contributors have little experience with critical fuel/weight planning.

Why on earth does this remind me the "manas" and "5.5s"??

airbus757

3rd Apr 2010, 06:50

You mentioned it costs 3% to carry extra fuel? That is not even in the ball-park. On a typical........ say DXB-SYD flight, a Triple7 or Airbus burns almost 50% of the extra fuel it carries.! An extra tonne of fuel equates to only having 500kgs extra fuel upon arrival.

Not quite true. If you have a closer look at things you will find that you burn about 33% of the fuel you carry. If we carry 1 ton of cargo it will cost us around 500kg for the ulr flights. Same goes for fuel, if we want to arrive at destination with 1000kg of fuel we will need 500kg to carry it there. That is 33% not 50%.

7

Oblaaspop

3rd Apr 2010, 07:43

Hmmm... Pool,

Following your reasoning, why do we bother loading fuel at all? We could just fill the fuel tanks with cargo!!

If you off-load a tonne of cargo to uplift a tonne of fuel, you will have about 500-600 kgs of that extra fuel left on arrival after a ULR (only 3-5 mins of fuel admittedly, but sometimes enough to reduce the 'pucker factor' and not have to commit to destination for a little longer!).

The point being chaps, if you think're gonna need it, put it on. I know of no-one that has been bought to task about extra fuel carried.

pool

3rd Apr 2010, 08:05

Come on Oblaaspop, you know better.

Situation: MTOW and DDP. You decide you need some extra to cover parameters "X" and "Y". You will have to offload payload to the same amount. Weights remain the same, planned burn remains the same. Upon arrival you might still have the extra, or you will have used it (or parts) due to the foreseen additional parameters.
In this case you would have the TOTAL extra fuel you decided to uplift, as the burn on the flightplan covered MTOW already. So if you exchange payload for fuel you will have all of it at destination or decision point, unless .... the factors "X" or "Y" effectively happened and the uplifted extra was used. This would then leave you with the initial reserves and this is what the extra should be intended for.

I know of no-one that has been bought to task about extra fuel carried

Happened here though.

airbus757

3rd Apr 2010, 11:34

If you off-load a tonne of cargo to uplift a tonne of fuel, you will have about 500-600 kgs of that extra fuel left on arrival after a ULR (only 3-5 mins of fuel admittedly, but sometimes enough to reduce the 'pucker factor' and not have to commit to destination for a little longer!).

Again not quite correct. If you exchange cargo for fuel, all other things being equal, you will arrive at destination with all of that fuel. Think about it. The 1000kg of cargo does not decrease during the flight, so why would a 1000kg of fuel reduce. This is a common error I see on the line at EK.

7

woodja51

3rd Apr 2010, 12:30

On Past Plans I Have Used There Is A Box Which Says Fod Or Fuel Overhead Destination... That Is Sort Of The Number That One Actually Wants To Know But Our Lidos Dont Actually Show It Unless You Do Some Of Your Own Maths Etc.

It Has A Min Fuel Line Against Each Waypoint But That Assumes You Are Burning All Your Contingency Etc.

Some Odd Maths In The Last Posts But I Always Thought That If You Swapped Payload For Fuel You Had The Fuel At The Destination...??

Or Did I Get My Maths/physics Bsc From Melbourne Uni By Corn Flake Package???

Wja

Oblaaspop

3rd Apr 2010, 17:56

A757,

I think you miss my point, indeed if you dump a tonne of cargo and uplift a tonne of extra fuel, of course you will still have that full tonne of fuel available to you at the other end.

If you don't offload the cargo however, you will only have the 500-600 kgs left at the other end.

The common mistake being, is that some guys want to arrive at destination with X amount of holding/extra for 'mum' fuel, but don't take into account that they actually have to put 50% more than the extra they need on (for ULR anyway).

I don't really see what the problem is anyway..... If there is even a hint or whiff of misty conditions now in DXB, the company automatically put on a ludicrous amount of extra gas and will willingly offload cargo etc to achieve it! Out of PER last year, they wanted me to leave 4 staff pax behind due to being landing weight limited in DXB due to the extra fuel for fog they wanted me to carry......... I just upped the planned burn by a few hundred kgs and got them on and got home a few minutes earlier good old cost index 99, works every time:E

Just be sensible, and keep your head down while doing it, and no-one will be any the wiser..... I'm bloody sensible on every one of my flights, and I have never been quizzed!

airbus757

3rd Apr 2010, 18:38

oh...k...

7

Schibulsky

4th Apr 2010, 01:31

Here some free tips to replace the guesswork:
The amount of extra fuel you put on will be burned by
what you find as extra fuel burn in the Lido Plan (good for +/- 3tons)
But if you ask the dispatcher to plan extra fuel, the
total fuel will include the burn for that.
It's always helpful to know your systems ;-)

Saltaire

4th Apr 2010, 06:32

Good point Schib...

Woodja 51, I had the same experience....Old Eagle flight plans used to have two ZFW corrections, one for ramp correction, used to correct for extra fuel to burn along the entire flight. The other was Landing correction, used if you wanted to have the extra fuel at destination for weather at destination for example. Of course, the Landing correction was higher but it was nice to have the two options and it showed the difference between burning the fuel enroute and having it still available at destination. If extra cargo was loaded as LMC, you would use the Ramp correction to account for the fuel to carry it the entire flight without needing any extra at destination.

The ZFW correction for LIDO is like the ramp correction, you need to account for the extra fuel required if you need it at destination.

Oblaaspop said, which is true...

"The common mistake being, is that some guys want to arrive at destination with X amount of holding/extra for 'mum' fuel, but don't take into account that they actually have to put 50% more than the extra they need on (for ULR anyway)."

Obaalspop said,

""I think you miss my point, indeed if you dump a tonne of cargo and uplift a tonne of extra fuel, of course you will still have that full tonne of fuel available to you at the other end."

This statement is not true. The tonne of cargo will weigh the same at destination, naturally, but the extra tonne fuel you carry some will be burned enroute, UNLESS you account for it in the fuel burn or carry extra fuel to account for that.

In any case, carry what you need and account for the extra fuel required if you need it, especially at DESTINATION.

pool

4th Apr 2010, 07:26

Oblaaspop, first you wrote:

If you off-load a tonne of cargo to uplift a tonne of fuel, you will have about 500-600 kgs of that extra fuel left on arrival after a ULR

then you corrected:

I think you miss my point, indeed if you dump a tonne of cargo and uplift a tonne of extra fuel, of course you will still have that full tonne of fuel available to you at the other end

So you got it, finally. But now you have a worthy successor with Saltaire:

This statement is not true. The tonne of cargo will weigh the same at destination, naturally, but the extra tonne fuel you carry some will be burned enroute

Some of us should go over basics again, or they'll make us look real bad!!!!

airbus757

4th Apr 2010, 08:25

Saltair said,

Obaalspop said,

""I think you miss my point, indeed if you dump a tonne of cargo and uplift a tonne of extra fuel, of course you will still have that full tonne of fuel available to you at the other end."

This statement is not true. The tonne of cargo will weigh the same at destination, naturally, but the extra tonne fuel you carry some will be burned enroute, UNLESS you account for it in the fuel burn or carry extra fuel to account for that.

The statement, stating the statement is not true, is not true. Saltair you are not adding extra weight to the aircraft if you REMOVE a ton of cargo and add a ton of fuel. The aircraft will weigh the same at take off therefore the fuel burn to destination will be the same in both cases. As a matter of fact, the case where you have the extra ton of fuel will actually burn less because the ton of fuel is pumped around the aircraft to optimize the C of G thereby saving fuel (airbus fuel system).

You must account for extra fuel burn only if the resulting take off weight is more than the original flight planned weight.

7

MosEisley

4th Apr 2010, 08:25

I'm so proud of my colleagues. Guys, just nut up and carry what you are comfortable with. Bottom line, it's your ass in the air and on the line. The safest and most conservative decision will always win in any aviation argument. Be commanders and tell them how its going to be, not the other way around.

airbus757

4th Apr 2010, 08:40

MosEisley,

Dude, we are just talking. Take a pill.

SMA,

The EK pilots lost their dignity ages ago.:}

7

Saltaire

4th Apr 2010, 11:36

I found some old notes, so maybe this may help a few people, myself included....two corrections here but concept is the same. EK CFP's would use the LNDG correction below.

9. Corrections to TRIP FUEL

CORR/1000 LNDG (L) and CORR/1000 RAMP (R). Initially Airpath computes the FUEL REQD for the planned ZFW then recalculates the TOTAL FUEL for the ZFW reduced by 3% or by 5 tonnes (whichever is less). The CORR/1000 RAMP value is the difference between the 2 derived TOTAL FUEL values divided by the difference between the 2 RAMP WTs. The CORR/1000 LNDG value is geometrically derived from CORR/1000 RAMP since the addition of an increment in aircraft weight requires a small addition to the fuel burn; that additional fuel when loaded also requires a small addition to the fuel burn and so on ad infinitum. Thus L = R/(1-R) and conversely R = L/(1+L).

At the planning stage, the aim is to modify the fuel values to arrive at destination with the same CFP fuel reserves after changes to ZFW or operational changes to Alternate or Holding fuel. Corrections to Contingency based on revised TRIP FUEL are not considered. The corrections are most easily understood by considering the necessary changes to the individual values in the fuel column and finally summing those values to yield a TOTAL FUEL. 5 examples are provided, the first 3 form the backbone of daily operations, the 4th applies purely to long haul and the 5th possibly at JNB/CNS but is included for completeness. Assume that CORR/1000 RAMP = .279 and CORR/1000 LNDG = .387:

Examples: 1 ADJUSTING TRIP FUEL FOR ZFW INCREASE:
ZFW has increased from the CFP value:
Multiply ZFW increase (say 2000kg) by LNDG: 2000kg x .387 = 774kg
This figure is the increased TRIP FUEL. This increase in TRIP FUEL causes an equal increase in TOTAL FUEL and will give the same planned arrival fuel.
The RAMP WT increase is the sum of the ZFW increase and the TRIP FUEL increase = 2774kg.
Cross check by multiplying the RAMP WT increase by RAMP: (2000 + 774)kg x .279 = 774kg
equally ADDITIONAL FUEL REQUIRED AT DESTINATION uses the same calculations since the aircraft is insensitive to its weight change being either ZFW or tankered fuel.

2 ADJUSTING TRIP FUEL FOR A ZFW DECREASE:
ZFW has decreased from CFP value:
Multiply ZFW reduction (say 2000kg) by the LNDG: 2000kg x 0.387 = 774kg
This figure is the reduced TRIP FUEL. This reduction in TRIP FUEL causes an equal reduction in TOTAL FUEL and will give the same planned arrival fuel.
The RAMP WT reduction is the ZFW reduction plus the TRIP FUEL reduction = 2774kg.
Cross check by multiplying the RAMP WT reduction by the RAMP: 2774kg x 0.279 = 774kg

3 ADJUSTING TRIP FUEL AFTER FINAL FUEL IS FIXED:
RAMP WT has changed due to (say) a drop in ZFW after fuelling was completed:
Multiply ZFW decrease (say 2000kg) by RAMP: 2000kg x .279 = 558kg
This figure is the decreased TRIP FUEL.
This reduction in TRIP FUEL does NOT affect the TOTAL FUEL and will give an increase in arrival fuel.
The converse applies for a ZFW increase after fuelling was completed.