Originally Posted by
FullWings
We are talking about extra fuel loaded at the captain’s discretion here, not what constitutes a legal fuel plan.
The point I’m trying to make (poorly it seems) is that there are some things that can be incentivised, like carrying less discretionary fuel when conditions allow and some things that can’t/shouldn’t because they involve breaking SOPs/law to achieve, like landing below minima.
Which is why we base our decisions on logic and experience. If you identify factors that are likely to increase the fuel burn to the point that the chances of not reaching your destination are significant, then you might need to compensate for that. If things are benign and you have SCF90/95/99 in the plan, then the maths says you are justified in going with that.
One of the points of the exercise is to reduce the routine carriage of discretionary fuel that is very likely not to be needed and for some destinations which are regularly served we have actual data to prove this.
I’m not BA, and haven’t ever been. But when I started at my company some 10 years ago as a brand new FO on the 737 the culture was very much one of piling on the fuel. 600kg ( 15 ish minutes fuel) would be added on almost routinely.
I actually remember the first time I was flying back to my home base, with a minimum diversion fuel of 2.3T, and the FMC showing that we were going to reach destination with 2.9T. It was the first time I was returning to home base with less than 3T on arrival and at the time I remarked that we were really tight on fuel 🤣
things are a fair bit different now though-and it would seem to the outsider that this incentive is to try and encourage folk who perhaps just pile on 20/30mins extra fuel routinely on a severe CAVOK day to consider reducing the extra