Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
Perhaps I am missing the sarcasm.
You did not teach them to use 15% instead of 115% for the smaller failures (a.k.a. 85 less fuel).
Forgetting about the baseline 100 in the l/g down case is a widespread error, but a well identified one. Re-assimilation in progress for many years.
If you missed the moment to point this visual trap, it's a lost opportunity, no worse. Sure as hell the 180+15 look bad enough already.
I mean that I taught them to calculate it this way FOB-EFOB (9-3 tons in my example), multiplied by whatever factor they see in the FPF chart. Obviously, if it is a mere 10% I would be adding it to the trip fuel without a malfunction (6 + 0.6 (10% of 6) = 6.6 actual trip fuel), but in the specific case of landing gear legs down (180%), I'm afraid I didn't, and they would be thinking that the trip fuel with in that case would be 10.8 instead of 16.8 tons. About the 15% extra, I guess I included it in my explanations, but... what is the use of including it if the method of calculating it is wrong?