Cui Bono? fuel ordering and KPI?
Anyone game? Eg number of 737 sectors per annum x the cost of carrying CFP+ 200kg =$................
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 17th Nov 2017 at 05:24.
If and when the Company is able to
- present aircraft that are perfectly aero-dynamic, have engines tuned to perfection and trimmed with load that's spot-on,
- guarantee that winds and levels will be as assumed by the flight plan,
it may be able to justifiably report on additional fuel carriage with some credibility. I think the data all too nebulous to be of any value, especially as the reasons for additional fuel carriage is unknown.
As an aside, I wonder if Marketing consider the cost of additional fuel burn when they wish to add some dazzle-dazzle, whizz bang stuff?
- present aircraft that are perfectly aero-dynamic, have engines tuned to perfection and trimmed with load that's spot-on,
- guarantee that winds and levels will be as assumed by the flight plan,
it may be able to justifiably report on additional fuel carriage with some credibility. I think the data all too nebulous to be of any value, especially as the reasons for additional fuel carriage is unknown.
As an aside, I wonder if Marketing consider the cost of additional fuel burn when they wish to add some dazzle-dazzle, whizz bang stuff?
Last edited by Ken Borough; 17th Nov 2017 at 06:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it may be able to justifiably report on additional fuel carriage with some credibility. I think the data all too nebulous to be of any value, especially as the reasons for additional fuel carriage is unknown.
An honest system, driven by a heartfelt desire to reduce CO2 pollution would ALSO include any financial inducement to management pilots (DFO or deputy) to drive an agenda.
Further any assessment would balance fuel ordered versus needed, including those times when instinct, experience or a vibe means pilots added fuel not strictly necessary but that decision saved a diversion and unscheduled overnight of crew, aircraft and passengers.
One suspect that in the absence of an inclusive real cost benefit model and transparent disclosures of any financial benefit, a more nefarious motive may be in operation.
Of course establishing a benchmark Ryanair offers insight into how this operates...
Ryanair set up a system to benchmark pilots against each other on their use of fuel. A twenty page table was produced with the pilots’ names, base, fuel burn, fuel target and percentage of use above or below the target.
A mate was "marked down" on a line check because he took discretionary fuel to a place notorious for springing a TEMPO on you. The weather had all the ingredients for thunderys, but none were forecast. He used his discretion, experience and knowledge of meteorology to predict the highly predictable. The thunderys eventuated and he had to hold for 50+ minutes. The checkie still berated him for not blindly following the company "fuel policy" and then sat back while he tankered 5500kg back to a CAVOK home base (as per the company fuel policy), at the princely sum of 55kg per 1000kg. Company fuel policy has been pushed so aggressively that in some places that you can be penalised for using your noodle.
Additional to 73qanda's point until Companies publish meaningful figures on the cost of diversion the entire argument is totally pointless. No point saving $1000 in fuel to then divert.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A mate was "marked down" on a line check because he took discretionary fuel to a place notorious for springing a TEMPO on you. The weather had all the ingredients for thunderys, but none were forecast. He used his discretion, experience and knowledge of meteorology to predict the highly predictable.
Imagine a 'performance interview' for an FO with the viscious HR manager present as adherence to fuel policy is considered a 'requisite' for promotion?
HR want control of pilots, they know pilots do not answer to corporate control channels. Ever wonder what the Qantas 'uniform policy' was a clumsy attempt at?
Company fuel policy has been pushed so aggressively that in some places that you can be penalised for using your noodle.
It suprises me from a legal perspective that most pilots do not understand what strict liability means. Fuel policy is nice to know but ultimately the only one being cross examined by the regulator's barrister is the PIC.
Fortunately my mate has a spine and despite knowing he would be marked down for carrying out his duty as a Captain, he chose to do what was right rather than what would get him through unscathed. The sad reality is that CASA enable these training organisations to push their own version of fuel policy to the potential detriment to safety. CASA should really lift its game here I think.
The reality of the situation is that ICAO has a statistical based fuel policy for many years now, which many airlines have adopted.
Th real key to these policies is not following the black and white, it is how to and when to apply the grey to your advantage.
Th real key to these policies is not following the black and white, it is how to and when to apply the grey to your advantage.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am aware of one Captain from a major Airline getting marked down on a line check as he called the Flight Planners and asked for CBR as an alternate for MEL as he wanted more fuel on board (It was 5000m in Showers). Happily took the extra fuel loaded and proceeded to taxi. Check Captain had noticed though that Canberra was closed for the period due to Fog. Made for an interesting discussion at the end apparently about professionalism.
Fuel is easy. If you need it take it. If you are making up excuses to always carry more than it may be time to reconsider your position and don't even bother to go to the Long Haul operators as you won't last long there. As for HR they should never be in any of those sort of meetings and they know it.
Fuel is easy. If you need it take it. If you are making up excuses to always carry more than it may be time to reconsider your position and don't even bother to go to the Long Haul operators as you won't last long there. As for HR they should never be in any of those sort of meetings and they know it.
Nunc est bibendum
I'm baffled as to why you're so bent out of shape about the FlightPulse app Rated De? Your descriptions of it bear virtually no resemblance to the internal Comms QF crew have had about it.
Your linking of the app with supposed KPI or 'performance interviews' (neither of which occur in the 'major Australian airline' with the app) is surreal.
There are regular exhortations to crew and information published to assist crew in being wise with their fuel making decisions. In 23 years I've never felt pressured about the discretionary fuel I've loaded. This app certainly doesn't add anything to that pressure.
Could it be used for evil instead of good? I guess so but that's about 178 steps further down the list of where we are at for the time being.
Your linking of the app with supposed KPI or 'performance interviews' (neither of which occur in the 'major Australian airline' with the app) is surreal.
There are regular exhortations to crew and information published to assist crew in being wise with their fuel making decisions. In 23 years I've never felt pressured about the discretionary fuel I've loaded. This app certainly doesn't add anything to that pressure.
Could it be used for evil instead of good? I guess so but that's about 178 steps further down the list of where we are at for the time being.
Keg, i work for a different airline but I am with you, i have never felt any pressure to manage my fuel loads in an adverse way.
I have been given information on how much it costs to carry fuel, what the impact of that is on the business and how I can make an impact on those costs, BUT i see that information that I can use when deciding on what fuel to load.
On a previous widebody type i flew with an individual that wanted to load an extra 300kg on for a reason that i wont go into here, but on face value it was not an unreasonable line of thought.
Except, the aeroplane doesnt assign fuel to various segments, i.e. that extra 300kg you loaded is for taxi, or the extra xyz kg is for whatever.
To my way of thinking 300 kg, 500kg even up to a tonne is neither here or there in the grand scheme of things (note the numbers vary depending on the aircraft -300kg might be a significant number in a 737 but isnt necessarily a worthwhile number in an airbus or boeing widebody).
I prefer to make an assessment on the entirety of the flight and then adjust the fuel to suit and where i need to make adjustments i will do so in multiple tonnes, rather than stick 300kg on, if i need fuel i will make it a meaningful amount 1500kg-3000 kg - 5000 kg. I will play with alternates to give me more and better options and i will make decisions enroute that might see me pull the pin and divert to an enroute airport before i put myself in an untenable position (that said though i have not diverted or put myself in an untenable position so it is a bit academic i guess).
I have however looked at the taf, ttf and other available info, including past experience, and said that tempo starting an hour after our sta is more than likely to come forward so I am loading the juice on now. Was it technically required? No, but on almost every occasion where I have done that there has been a significant enough change in the weather such that the extra fuel has been the thing that has avoided a diversion.
There is a lot to be said for listening to that little voice in the back of your head.
The above is a very long winded way of saying that i welcome as much info as the company can give me to allow me to make better, more informed decisions, but I dont feel pressure to not carry extra fuel.
I do however make sure I have considered every option, including enroute diversions and different levels, speeds etc when i need to limit payload to allow me the fuel i want. That, to me, is good airmanship and good management.
I have been given information on how much it costs to carry fuel, what the impact of that is on the business and how I can make an impact on those costs, BUT i see that information that I can use when deciding on what fuel to load.
On a previous widebody type i flew with an individual that wanted to load an extra 300kg on for a reason that i wont go into here, but on face value it was not an unreasonable line of thought.
Except, the aeroplane doesnt assign fuel to various segments, i.e. that extra 300kg you loaded is for taxi, or the extra xyz kg is for whatever.
To my way of thinking 300 kg, 500kg even up to a tonne is neither here or there in the grand scheme of things (note the numbers vary depending on the aircraft -300kg might be a significant number in a 737 but isnt necessarily a worthwhile number in an airbus or boeing widebody).
I prefer to make an assessment on the entirety of the flight and then adjust the fuel to suit and where i need to make adjustments i will do so in multiple tonnes, rather than stick 300kg on, if i need fuel i will make it a meaningful amount 1500kg-3000 kg - 5000 kg. I will play with alternates to give me more and better options and i will make decisions enroute that might see me pull the pin and divert to an enroute airport before i put myself in an untenable position (that said though i have not diverted or put myself in an untenable position so it is a bit academic i guess).
I have however looked at the taf, ttf and other available info, including past experience, and said that tempo starting an hour after our sta is more than likely to come forward so I am loading the juice on now. Was it technically required? No, but on almost every occasion where I have done that there has been a significant enough change in the weather such that the extra fuel has been the thing that has avoided a diversion.
There is a lot to be said for listening to that little voice in the back of your head.
The above is a very long winded way of saying that i welcome as much info as the company can give me to allow me to make better, more informed decisions, but I dont feel pressure to not carry extra fuel.
I do however make sure I have considered every option, including enroute diversions and different levels, speeds etc when i need to limit payload to allow me the fuel i want. That, to me, is good airmanship and good management.
Agreed snake charmer
Make it count. No point loading a tempo (just) and ten hours later having 55 mins...
Make it count. No point loading a tempo (just) and ten hours later having 55 mins...
I once wrote the powers that be a suggestion for a new fuel policy. I called it the Retrospective Fuel Policy. As far as I could see, it was the perfect policy, as it would cover all situations, whilst still actually carrying the minimum possible. It even saved a bit of wear and tear on the engines, as you could arrange for them to self shut-down as you approached the gate through fuel exhaustion. Strangely, I never got a reply.
All of the gibberish we get about fuel is always retrospective. When I order fuel I'm making a prediction. World of difference.
When the fly speck existed, it had a number of outcomes. First we all thought we had to win...and that was by carrying the most fuel. It was quite some time later that an FO told me that I had it the wrong way around.
And it was easily manipulated. One flight had an intermediate landing. For cost reasons we'd tanker fuel out of the departure point, to limit the loading in the middle. But, if you offloaded ALL of the tankered fuel, that gave you a negative fuel order for the fly spec, thus making you look good. And you then took the flight planned load out of the next spot, again scoring a zero, but actually loading expensive fuel.
Fly specs disappeared very quickly indeed.
Going back even further, there was a captain nicknamed 'Vapours'. He only ever carried the flight planned fuel. His diversion rate was so high that the company ultimately created a special adjustment just for him, giving him a extra 5,000 kgs on every sector.
All of the gibberish we get about fuel is always retrospective. When I order fuel I'm making a prediction. World of difference.
When the fly speck existed, it had a number of outcomes. First we all thought we had to win...and that was by carrying the most fuel. It was quite some time later that an FO told me that I had it the wrong way around.
And it was easily manipulated. One flight had an intermediate landing. For cost reasons we'd tanker fuel out of the departure point, to limit the loading in the middle. But, if you offloaded ALL of the tankered fuel, that gave you a negative fuel order for the fly spec, thus making you look good. And you then took the flight planned load out of the next spot, again scoring a zero, but actually loading expensive fuel.
Fly specs disappeared very quickly indeed.
Going back even further, there was a captain nicknamed 'Vapours'. He only ever carried the flight planned fuel. His diversion rate was so high that the company ultimately created a special adjustment just for him, giving him a extra 5,000 kgs on every sector.
Clearly you haven't been to the Street for a while - there are plenty hanging around there.
You are correct. Wrong acronym - I can't keep up with the management reshuffles and operational charts. Suffice to say, the meat of what I posted is from the horse's mouth, whatever their title.
You are correct. Wrong acronym - I can't keep up with the management reshuffles and operational charts. Suffice to say, the meat of what I posted is from the horse's mouth, whatever their title.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your linking of the app with supposed KPI or 'performance interviews' (neither of which occur in the 'major Australian airline' with the app) is surreal.
The CAR 234 gives you protection to do as you see fit, yet they will take it away from you without resistance just as they are hoping; You refuse to see what may be coming. Each individual can choose what they like, however you get no choice when it comes to CAR234. Strict liability is all yours.. The road to hell is paved with good intention
Fuel ladders exist at Cathay, as other poster have pointed out, ask the pilots at Ryanair. At least in Europe we have far more alternates.
'performance interviews'
Just like your clumsy uniform policy; an attempt to exert control
Last edited by Rated De; 18th Nov 2017 at 20:30.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the gibberish we get about fuel is always retrospective. When I order fuel I'm making a prediction. World of difference.
Sadly though will not stop them trying and bar room bravado will ensure that despite much talk most fall into line and reduce fuel ordering. Control assured and works just fine performance managing people until one day that fuel was actually needed. The only person standing in the court being cross examined (should they survive) is the clown who gave away whatever it is they tell you for continued strict liability and all that entails in a court of law.
Union resistance or regulatory intervention....The magic eight balls says 'good luck with that'!