SFO-HKG Fuel Uasge.

[Thrust]

This may only effect the Airbus fleet or it could be the same out of LAX, I don't know.

Every time I fly from SFO to HKG I use all the contingency fuel. This is when weather avoidence, unforcast adverse wind, and levels have not been an issue. Why does this happen?

What I think is that we typically take off from SFO at max T/O weight and we are in fact several tons over that. Nowhere else on our network at an airfield at sea level and with normally temps around ISA do we use so much available runway. This with packs off and TOGA.

If this has happened to you have a thought about whats going on. All Airbus jokes aside I think we may have a safety issue here and the next time it happens to me I'm going to request a cargo weight check in HKG. (CX will love that!) If it's not overweight and all other conditions are as per the flight plan then the problem must be with the plan. Either way it's not acceptable.

Am I overlooking something or what? Any comments?

[Herb]

It's always been that way westbound across NOPAC. It's a fiddle. If you get short of the good stuff, just land and pick up more. Don't try and second guess the system pre departure. Oh..and make sure they have a crew waiting at the tech stop.

[Screaming Lord]

Same thing happened to the Fleet Manager apparently and after an investigation they still could not come up with an explanation! Ask him.

[Flying Spanner]

Funny about that. It used to happen on the Classic some years ago YVR-HKG. Seems a certain Station Manager was getting big bonuses by "adjusting" the ZFW

[drag]

here is my theory and it's broken into two parts.
1 We pick up Jet A in the states as opposed to A1, I'm convinced that you cannot fly as many miles with a ton of Jet A as you can with A1. In other words A1 has a better calorific content. I've noticed the difference for years on the boeing fleet.
2) We use average weights for passengers, well how many 75kg men do you see running around in the States not many I would bet. That and uncontrolled amounts of hand luggage add up to a lot more weight in reality than the loadsheet indicates. On the subject of hand luggage I have seen passengers who between the 2 of them could barely lift their hand luggage , Take 20kg of hand luggage per passenger multiply that by 350 odd passengers and you have an additional 7000kg that is not reflected on the loadsheet. Sobering thought isn't it.
I have in the past insisted on the cargo being weighed. As a result of burning more fuel than flight planned and requiring 1 to 2 EPR more than indicated to maintain cruise thrust. The indication that I got back was that the cargo weight was correct. How do you verify the findings? but somewhere you have to trust someone.
Talking to the freighter crews, they do not suffer from this problem, it seems to be confined to the passenger fleet

[This message has been edited by drag (edited 01 May 2001).]

[H721]

how about the engines' actual performance vs those listed in papers.

would fmc be fooled by deteriorated engine performance factor?

------------------
Not much of an engineer

[RYNCLEE]

Flying Spanner- I remember it well-scary wasnt it? I also seem to remember the cargo doors often being re-opened after all the paperwork was done and we were ready to go. Fat dumb and happy with +100 kilos overhead TPE!!

[graffiti]

Flying Spanner- do you have any proof that there was a payoff to overload an aircraft? The CAD would be might interested in that kind of documentation or could it be you are just spreading an old false rumour?
The old -200 long haul days were alsways a challenge but to suggest that YVR purposely overloaded the aircraft.......I don't think so!

[BlunderBus]

Maybe the CX 'forecast winds' are a little 'tweaked'....take a look at 'step below' figures...they are worked on a zero fuel weight far below the actual to make things fit...why bother including that info at all on the flight plan?

[DLC]

Drag has it pretty much right. The standard Pax weights used by CX are way off the mark. In the Air Navigation Order of Hong Kong it states that 75kg and 65kg may be used as the MINIMUM standard for male and female pax. In the CX Operations Vol ? ( can't recall the number) The weights stated actually INCLUDE the cabin baggage. This is apparently allowed by a dispensation from the CAD.

You bet the average weights are nearer 85kg and 75kg without cabin bags. Also note the friendly check in staff often allow several Kilos over the allowed limit (pax think this is great)......this is not reflected on the load sheet.

Finally aircraft gain weight with age and the the CX policy for weighing is pretty lax.

Ask your performance engineers how CX aircraft compare in degredation factors with similar operators and you will find you are the highest.

P.S.Flight safety department don't want to know these facts.

[stickyb]

This post raises an interesting question about hand luggage, which is something that I have been pondering on for a little while.

I should state that out I only ever fly as SLF, although have been priviledged to be "up front" sometimes, and I have also never flown out of LAX on CX.

What I have noticed, however, is that some airport checkins are much more lax (forgive the pun) than others when it comes to the rules about hand luggage.

I have seen recently so many flights where the overhead lockers have been stuffed to bursting point with all sorts of items over the weight and/or size limits.

Even happened to me recently on a return from Seoul with CX. Had a small briefcase and a hefty holdall with me. Put the holdall on the scales at checkin, weighed around 14Kg. Was quite happy to check it in, and din't want to lug it around myself, but the "helpful" checkin lady said "Oh, thats's all right, you can carry that on yourself, you'll be much quicker off in HK"

Sometimes it gets to be quite a joke seeing the poor cabin staff trying to persuade pax from cluttering up the aisles and emergency exits with bags, only to find there is absolutely no space in the overhad lockers to put anyting more in!

[PPRuNe Towers]

UK standard weights changed years ago to attempt to get something closer to reality.

As an example standard male with hand luggage is 88kg. They kicked, they screamed but commercial expediency lost in the end. Next on the hit list is baggage weights. Hoist by their own petards the operators have automatically recorded real baggage weights for years - simply a function of the software they use at check-in. I can hear the shredders running already..............

CAD know exactly what the score is.

------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]

[BusAce]

All the above are good spectrum of causes.
But.. As a professional pilot, and this is not a criticism THRUST, did you file an ASR?
I think perhapse you might 've got an official cause or advice, and it would've enlightened those who are unable to access PPRUNE. I hope you had thought of that. I agree with the chaps who suggested payload anomaly.

[Thrust]

The simple answer is no I haven't busace. I've always landed in HK with enough to get me to my alternate if required. If I had used the 1 hour rule I would have been more concerned.

That's a bit slack I realise but after 16 hours blocks to blocks the relief of being home and the idea of getting away from work seems to interfere with rational thought!

I'm looking forward to my next trip westbound across the Pacific and will be more vigilant in following up on unwarranted drastic reductions in contingency fuel. (lets all start putting in the paperwork!)

Regard's to all that have replied.... very interesting comments and great food for thought.