Extra fuel

[catchup]

Is ist true, especially at carriers in the US, the commander has to specify/report why he/she ordered fuel above MINTOF?

regards

[BOAC]

It is by no means unusual for commanders to annotate a PLOG with the reason for extra uplift. Presumably such an uplift is for a reason, so why not say so? I do not have a problem with it.

[catchup]

@BOAC

For what reason such a report should be good for?

regards

[BOAC]

Lots - eg it might highlight an error in the PLOG calculated fuel if extra fuel is constantly being loaded for a particular reason which the software has missed.

[catchup]

For that reason the flightplan data (including ordered extra fuel) can be taken easily without a report.

regards

[RAT 5]

There was great mirth enjoyed, a few years ago, when the highly experienced captain of a charter airline was operating his a/c on a schedule route on behalf of the parent 'major'. It was only a short hop, wintery morning, busy major airport XXXX with lots of likely delays in handling due to the conditions and congestion etc. He was on the 1st of a multi-rotation day.
He deemed it prudent, considering all things, to tanker round trip fuel + some for Holding at XXXX . (It could be done without risking wing icing during turnround.) However, the parent 'major' did not tanker fuel on that sector and quite a contest enschewed between captain & dispatcher. In the end, as long as the captain annotated the fuel order with the reason, all would be accepted and the dispatcher had covered his rear end.

It took them a while to de-code. ME as the reaon for the extra fuel.

In the end, as Hollywood would have it, he went in and out of the congested hub with no delay, while other a/c sat around waiting for fuel. Carriers that had tankered in had burnt holding fuel at XXX, and those that handn't tankered needed some anyway, thus overloading the fuellers in the early inclement morning.

Another carrier, very long-haul charter Europe to Caribbean had min plog policy, and again requiring justificatioon why extra was taken. The argument was that cont' of 2500kgs gave you 40 mins anyway. As we were operating at the range of the a/c, across the N.Atlantic with jet streams of upto 150kts headwind, into airfields of very limited approach aids and parking areas, the likelyhood of delays, inbound was high. A diversion was a commercial nightmare. Fuel always seemd the cheapest insurance, but in any case, it was often not possible to carry any. We were nearly always at MTOW, anyway, but when not, the idea of leaving 2000kgs at home when setting off on a 13hour sector across the pond, struck me as a stress causing exercise. Sadly, the C.P. still wanted to know precisely why you'd made your decision.
It grated that you could have years of proven experience, the company was happy for you to take 200.000.000U$ worth of machinery and all the pax halfway across the world, but they were worried you would keep all the Green Shield stamps for yourself.
I would accept that on the return leg, with tailwinds & a wealth of diversion airfields available, & CAT 2 at home base, the attitude should be different.

Experience and thoughtfullness will often prove successful in avoiding the poo. I just wish it was encouraged more, rather than the 'belive the computer' attitude and don't think too much. And if you do question the 'oracle' of microsoft, woebetied unless you have a cast iron explanation. I find that attitude from on high to not be the best promoter of safety. Perhaps a revisit to the story of BY at GRO might awaken some thinking.

[BOAC]

For that reason the flightplan data (including ordered extra fuel) can be taken easily without a report - so how, catchup, does 'your' system identify the people who 'always take 1000kg' (NB s/haul!) - regardless - because it is a nice round figure?

[foxmoth]

I would accept that on the return leg, with tailwinds & a wealth of diversion airfields available, & CAT 2 at home base, the attitude should be different.

I don't see how a tailwind that can be less than forecast can be less worrying than a headwind that can be stronger.:ooh:

[catchup]

identify the people who 'always take 1000kg'

You are kidding, aren't you?

regards

[Hummingfrog]

Fox Moth I will try to explain why an increase in headwind is worse than a decrease in tailwind.

Take a 4000nm sector at TAS of 500kts would take 8 hrs still air

Take a 4000nm sector TAS 500kts wind ahead at 100kts takes 10hrs a difference of 2 hrs

Take a 4000nm sector TAS 500kts tail wind 100kts takes 6 hrs 40 min at difference of 1hr 20 mins

Thus a greater headwind has a proportionally greater cost than a lesser tail wind of the order 3:2.

I hope that is clear;)

HF

[BOAC]

catchup - what is the issue? Would YOU have a problem with annotating your PLOG with a reason for extra fuel? Is it not also a useful part of the 'on-line' training for F/Os to be given the reasoning for fuel uplifts?

Nobody, especially me, is saying do NOT carry extra fuel. I generally do, sometimes I take PLOG fuel. It is simply that I have always tried to do so for a reason.

I once flew with a Captain who carried 1000kg on a Cavok day 'because it is nice to have a bit extra' and then carried 1000kg on a Cat 3 day - for the same reason. That, to me, is bordering on lunacy.

MJ - interesting questions. Did any answers appear? BTW, PS I did not query the Cavok fuel but...................

[blueloo]

I love going with flight plan fuel/min op (assuming no additional planned for WX/holding).

Why?

Because it gives me no options at the other end in case something goes wrong!

[Kato747]

Working for an ACMI Operator, it is frequent that client airlines demand to know why any fuel in excess of CFP requirements is carried. We have no problem providing this information. It's called professionalism, guys!

Regardless, it is up to the crew, how much, if any, extra fuel is carried.

Maybe, if the bean-counters had to justify "extra" fuel carried in their Jags or Benz's on their way to deposit their paychecks..... hmmmmmm?

I stand by my first flight instructor's admonition that
"the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire"

Cheers:cool:

[catchup]

(a)Would YOU have a problem with annotating your PLOG with a reason for extra fuel?(b) Is it not also a useful part of the 'on-line' training for F/Os to be given the reasoning for fuel uplifts?

a) If anyone can tell me for what reason it's good for and it improves airsafety - NO

b) When ordering fuel, I always chat with my copilot. I don't have to write anything for that.

regards

[FlightDetent]

Intresting subject. Let's say I know of a company not run by beancounters yet (some will argue it is not run yet at all) where no justifications need to be made and at present probably noone thoroughly analyses fuel uplift data.

It is a single hub (two intersecting runways) s/h operation, main alternate is 1000 - 1400 kg away wind/weight dependent, company standard final reserve is planned at 1250 kg fixed, speaking of 737-4/5 operations. Vast majority of pilots decide to take no less than 1200 extra for "half an hour" irrespective of weather, thus the landing fuel stands at 4000+ kg, that is the figure aimed for. Altough perhaps unnecessary on many occasions, I agree it keeps the strain out of the brain.

Once I spoke to a fellow countryman who earns his € refuelling at Frankfurt, if he is to believe we arrive with close to most fuel, outtankering our competitors by average 2000 kg. That being said, FRA is 45 min tkof/ldg and we tanker fuel OUT of there. It is nice to know that if doomsday came we could turn back, fly home, and on minimum reserves reach the 3rd farthest alternate (1300-1700kg), but...

... my question is, would this be tolerated in "properly" run "western" company?

FD.

[BOAC]

Catchup - I'm going to bow out of this part of the thread, referring to my first post. Each to their own? For FD, I would suggest that landing a 737 with 4T+ in Frankfurt REGARDLESS of weather is unreal. 2 landing runways etc etc?

I would rather try to progress Mike J's points:-

***********NB In my experience -

-- We could ask how many Captains in our own airline carry minimum fuel, even when destination weather is poor.

Assuming by 'minimum' you mean PLOG, very, very few ..............'management' pilots have been known to do it.

-- We could ask how many First Officers would remain silent in such situations. Silent at the flight planning stage. Silent in flight at the point where diversion was demanded.

...............Likewise very few, probably none.

-- We could ask how many First Officers receive adequate CRM, aircraft performance, fuel planning and job description training.

-- Ditto the last for Captains !

...............Varies hugely with operator, all in UK receive 'formal' CRM trianing, whether that is 'adeqaute' is easily debated.

-- We could ask how many Captains regard First Officers as mere bums on seats, making up the numbers, whose opinions are worthless.

................Very very few, a dying breed, thank the Lord!

-- We could ask how many Captains are perfectly capable of abusive language directed at other staff.

...............A depressing number. Just look at some of the PP's posts here.

-- We could ask how many Captains would be reluctant to declare a Mayday, in view of possible disciplinary repercussions.

...............None AFAIK.

-- We could ask if a combination of the above factors could lead to a safety threatening in-flight shortage of fuel.

...............Do you need to ask?:D

[411A]

I worked for one company where the chief pilot would always request why extra fuel was carried...and it wasn't for about a year that I found out why he never did carry any extra.

Enroute between two SE asian rather large cities he climbed the aircraft to FL350, only to me told by ATC (via HF) to descend straightaway due to crossing traffic ahead...only option being FL280.

His actions were quite astonishingly simple on this occasion, he simply turned off the HF and continued to destination at FL350.

Simple as that. Wasn't the first time either, so I was told.

Now some might well not believe, but another Captain on the obs seat, as well as the duty F/O and F/E all had the same story.

I kid you not.

[Tan]

BOAC

Your quote” I once flew with a Captain who carried 1000kg on a Cavok day 'because it is nice to have a bit extra' and then carried 1000kg on a Cat 3 day - for the same reason. That, to me, is bordering on lunacy”

I thought I was the only one that had witnessed/experienced this lunacy and I’ve had F/O’s try to do the same thing. Monkey see, monkey do I guess.

On the other hand I’ve also experienced dispatchers trying to put on tankerage fuel when the weather conditions at the departure airport were less then desirable due to slippery runways etc. They didn’t seem to understand the concept of trying to stay on the runway surface in the event of a RTO. In marginal conditions having all that extra weight on T/O certainly wasn’t going to make my job of stopping or handling an engine out any easier.

Bottom line; use your common sense when requesting additional fuel, don't be a monkey...

[FlightDetent]

Unreal I would use for flying to SVO with alternate HEL (CAVOK day in Moscow) with 6 runways available in the city and being MLW limited on a -500! Anyhow, thank you for a swift reply I accept I´ll see no more due to the simplicity of the topic.

What exactly would be the arrival fuel to FRA, LHR (MAN nominated for alternate! - 30 min hldg fuel understood) and, gentlemen, PRG perhaps? I understand a number of UK pilots visit a here a lot on various equipment, say in terms of holding time available?

Hail PPRuNe,
FD.

[BusyB]

I have read this thread with interest but when it reaches the position of trying to pin someone down to a fuel figure for a specific flight I do feel it is turning into a joke. Yes, we can all learn from errors in the past, but, when it comes to predicting the future we use our experience, local knowledge and best judgement. This pointscoring attitude sucks!

[TopBunk]

FD

I fly Airbus A319/320/321 for a 'large' LHR operator, so we fly similar aircraft when it comes to fuel requirements!

I take your point re independent runways vs intersecting runways, but honestly if you operate ex PRG, they barely intersect in that it virtually impossible to think of an incident that would take out sufficient of both runways to preclude landing on 31 or 24.

You say you use LHR with MAN diversion into the UK. Why? You have Cat3 capable Stansted, Gatwick, Birmingham much closer, plus many others. And you take 30 minutes holding fuel?

OK, I know that LHR can be difficult - I have operated in and out as my job for over 15 years and still can't guess what the delays will be - if any, but am (generally) happy with my company policy of 99% statistical contingency fuel, which can give just 10 minutes contingency plus (unrealistic) div fuel, leaving me trip + reserve + about 25 minutes fuel total.

When I joined, then skippers targetted landing a 737-200 with 4 tonnes into LHR as a comfort margin - about where your company is now. Today (a nice day) we were planned into LHR with 2.1 tonnes remaining at midday - I was happy. Why? Well it was certainly a better than 99% day with CAVOK conditions, light 5000 ft winds (which affect the arrival rate), a weekend non peak time arrival.

Re FRA, PRG:

I have never held into PRG, so I would be happy to depart with Reserve + Cont + Div, so on a nice day minimum fuel 100% of the time. Add to that an extra approach + wx factor if TS
around.

FRA: different to PRG - a busy airport which can result in up to 30 miinutes holding (max) on occasional days (high winds when 18 can't be used for departure, for example) at peak times. Have diverted from FRA more than once! Can be long RNAV approaches not always properly factored in to the plog. Generally happy with plog fuel + 15 minutes.

Beware also ZRH and NCE, the only other places in Europe where holding is likely. In ZRH the evenings can cause 30 minute delaysdue runway configuration issues [grrrr] and at NCE protracted low level vectoring on the Saleya approach burns fuel very quickly [90 nm to go when at 3000ft!].

[Bealzebub]

1000kgs, sounds a lot to some people, when in fact for a mid size jet (757) it is about 4 times round a holding pattern. That is not an unusual practice at some high traffic density airports. Carrying a tonne of fuel extra costs approximetaly 4% of its own weight per hour (40kg or 50 litres per hour) that would mean a rough cost figure of about £18 (US$33) for a 1 hour cruise flight, £ 54 (US$99) for a 3 hour flight. Compare that to the cost of a diversion.

[TopBunk]

Bealzebub

What you have to consider also is that the comfort factor of a tonne of fuel regardless multiplied by the number of flights per year x £18 per flight is a considerable amount.

Let's say that you work for BA at LHR with 41% of the slots.

£18 per flight x 41% total movements of 44/hour x 18 hours operation per day x 365 days = several million pounds per annum - and that is using 737/320 fuel amounts, let alone 747 at 13 hours x 4% = 42 % extra fuel burnt.

I am not management - far from it, believe me - but what my company want is for the flight crew (both guys, not just one) to make sensible decisions on the day - the cost savings still outweigh 2 or 3 diversion costs. So, I ask myself, is there anything to suggest that this falls outside of the 99% statistical contingency that I am offered. If there is something then I load extra fuel (about 50% of the time :O )

[Bealzebub]

Yes topbunk I agree.
All companies want their pilots to make sensible decisions. The point I was making is that a tonne of fuel is not an awful lot although it may sound it. As we both know many aircraft carry this weight in all sorts of nonsensical ways, such as excess bar/catering, rubbish and even condensation ( although there may be little you can do about the latter). The chances of a diversion become statistically greater the less contingency fuel you carry. The cost of a diversion is rather like "how long is a piece of string", but I would suggest that £3000 - £4000 ($5500 - $7500) would be a reasonably conservative minimum estimate by the time passenger coaching, aircraft delay costs and all the other factors are priced in. Of course it is a theoretical exercise ( since most of us don't put it to the test !) However that would suggest that for an average 2 hour cruise flight sector carrying a tonne of extra fuel ( which I accept may be too much or too little in specific circumstances), the diversion rate would have to be less than 1 in 100 flights (1%) for the mathematics to be in favour of minimum plog fuel.

I know it is difficult to argue any specific cost since we can only apply a broad brush to the whole matter, but I would maintain that is food for though and I believe the figures I have used are probably erring on the lower side as regards the diversion costs.

[Lou Scannon]

I'm out of the game now, but I will throw in a few comments from the past.

The BA pilot holding somewhere who said that he "couldn't hold for long as he was only carrying "Sword" fuel" (Sword of course referring to the computer flight plan).
Another aircraft chipped in with the words:
"He who lives by the sword...."

A BA Flight Manager who wrote to one of the captains asking why he had failed to carry minimum fuel on a recent sector. The reply simply said:
"What I carry...IS minimum fuel!"

For myself, I was always aware of the redundancy capability of the aircraft. We had more than one, indeed we had several, hydraulic, electric, air conditioning etc systems. Non of the beancounters ever suggested that we could remove some of them and save a fortune with the weight reduction. No one came out with figures suggesting that if we ran on just two hydraulic systems and operated x number of aircraft we would then save some y numbers of pounds every year.

And yet, bothers and sisters we have but one fuel system and that seems to be constantly under economic review. The concentration is always on landing fuel and never on the more important sector burn.

When that fuel system "fails", and it has "failed" on many occasions in the past, there is no backup. Not only will a lot of the lights go out but we will lose all the big dials and most of the comms.

Still makes me shiver to think about it!

[SeniorDispatcher]

>>>Is ist true, especially at carriers in the US, the commander has to specify/report why he/she ordered fuel above MINTOF?

Speaking as a dispatcher operating under US FAR 121 Domestic/Flag rules (NOT what a dispatcher is on that side of the pond), the above is usally a company requirement.

I endeavor to consider the likely possibilities when I plan fuel loads, and personally, I have zero problem should a PIC want to discuss adding more. Using 737 values, if s/he wants another 1,000-2,000 lbs, I usually don't have a problem with that, but will ask why they feel they need it. Not to second guess their rationale, but to crosscheck myself, i.e. have they considered something that I missed in my assessment/planning, and more importantly, is it something that I need to apply to -other- flights.

On rare occasion, I'll get a PIC who wants to add 4,000+ lbs. and most of these requests seem to be rooted in the "I flew this leg last week and....." when the weather today is completely the opposite of the way it had been the week before. After discussing -today's- weather, we usually agree to something less of an increase. On the even rarer instances where the PIC insists of 4,000+ more and there is no weather/operational need for it, I'll usually conference in a chief pilot on the phone. He'll get his fuel for the immediate flight at hand, but his CP will discuss it with him later. Like I said, that's a rare instance. Most crews and dispatchers here converse and coordinate fuel loads without too much of a problem.

[BOAC]

Bealzebub - my fault! I should have specified that the '1000kg' was for a 737 - roughly 6 times around!

I suspect the 747 fleets have their 'it is nice to have 5,000kg extra' people too:D

The problem is, Lou, where does one stop? Is '1000kg extra' (since it is a figure which in the example I quoted was plucked from thin air with no logic) - ENOUGH for a 737 or should he perhaps have taken 3000kg............. Not long before we have return fuel, perf permitting:confused:

[ARMGAT]

Every time I take more than min fuel, I write a little note on the plog, not because it’s required by the management but but to help me remember why, if ever being asked at a later time.

[catchup]

Is ist true, especially at carriers in the US, the commander has to specify/report why he/she ordered fuel above MINTOF?

And, if so, what's behind that company (?) requirement?

regards

[Dionysus]

:cool: Cause I can always seems a good answer to me.:ok:

[Orion Man]

I believe fuel is in the region of $500 a tonne now. I always try to justify carrying a little bit extra in my conscience by pushing for directs with ATCs to negate the effects of carrying it. Many blindly follow their airways it seems and are too polite to ask.

[Erwin Schroedinger]

-- We could ask how many Captains in our own airline carry minimum fuel, even when destination weather is poor.

Lots. It's seen as a badge of supreme ability by some of them.

-- We could ask how many First Officers would remain silent in such situations. Silent at the flight planning stage. Silent in flight at the point where diversion was demanded.

Lots. They've expressed with me their reluctance to speak up with many Capts.

-- We could ask how many First Officers receive adequate CRM, aircraft performance, fuel planning and job description training.

Very poor training and low enthusiasm to learn from self study.

-- Ditto the last for Captains !

Ditto the reply.

-- We could ask how many Captains regard First Officers as mere bums on seats, making up the numbers, whose opinions are worthless.

Lots.

-- We could ask how many Captains are perfectly capable of abusive language directed at other staff.

All.

-- We could ask how many Captains would be reluctant to declare a Mayday, in view of possible disciplinary repercussions.

A few. Even the conceited ones are'nt that dumb.

-- We could ask if a combination of the above factors could lead to a safety threatening in-flight shortage of fuel.

It could, but I'm amazed it does'nt except rarely. Maybe it's like buses....none for ages then loads all at once.

[FlightDetent]

Now those number put things really in perspective. I mean probably not even TREs here could "do" LHR with those values.;) I see your daily bread is well deserved as you can do magic. Until we are made to learn so, I guess I'll still aim somewhat closer to the unreal figures.

FD.

[BOAC]

Sorry, FD - you've lost me there - I don't think I mentioned LHR. I do not go there. Think you have confused me with someone else?

[FlightDetent]

Indeed. Lost in translation.

FD.

[Ignition Override]

As for calling the dispatcher (in "Ice Station Zebra") to ask for another 1-2,000 lbs of extra contingency fuel, they seem to want to know the reason. This is at a US major airline (744-757...).

Simply by calling and mentioning some nearby weather which we might have just seen on the radar summary (if easily accessible-sometimes not), which is moving near or parallel to either the departue or destination airport, or the large area of forecast turbulence over the Great Lakes at FL220-350 (our max ceiling) near a jetstream wind, he/she can spot your concern and rarely mentions an excuse not to add a little fuel. Often, we have no fuel planned for an alternate airport, and just the normal 45 minutes Reserve and about 25-30 min Cont. fuel. This often is the case even for a two hour enroute block time, not including up to i.e. 20 minutes taxi fuel.

If we often call Dispatch to add such a modest amount of extra fuel, I don't know if a Chief Pilot is informed of this. But if we avoid a supposed serious delay right at departure to add fuel (but none added) and we tell Dispatch enroute that due to extra vectoring after climbing from Midway (Chicago) and almost half of cont. is already gone, we will need to state "Min Fuel" upon checking in with "Peoples' Republik" Approach Control, then a Chief (or Asst.) Chief Pilot is notified and just wants a quick chat. Now, whether this is required or because the Chief Dispatcher feels like his staff have been slighted by the unspoken implications regarding their fuel planning policies, I have no idea .:rolleyes: . Don't get me wrong. Our Dispatch Dept. is excellent and in my opinion, they are worth their weight in GOLD. Unless you want to do your own "raw data" flight planning like they did years ago on Connie Kalitta's cargo Learjets (many 16-28 hour duty days, thanks to Part 91 ferry flights on either end of planned duty period).

And this was before the recent fuel price manipulations (Ausbeutung von Arschloecher?), eh...I mean increases. Nice time to have owned fuel shares on Wall Street:mad: , as during Desert Storm in '91?:suspect: