Last nights speedbird out of JFK

[Trentino]

hello everyone, last night I heard Speedbird, i think it was flight 112, departing out of JFK. During the climbout atc told them to 'pick of the rate of climb' Speedbird complied but quickly reminded them about the fuel shortage at Heathrow. To my astonishment and probably even to the Speedbirds astonishment, the controller was not aware of the shortage. After some conversation between the two, atc told them to operate at any advantageous speed. Atc was almost apologetic

my question is this.

Seeing that ATC was so compliant with British airways last night after reminding them of the shortage,couldnt British remind everyone of this shortage by adding that in the remarks section of the flightplan?
I mean if ATC in Newyork understood, Im sure other airports with less traffic density could too.

If all this is fluff please forgive me.

[055166k]

Good post...I'm a controller at Swanwick [London ACC] and it is only by reading Pprune that the full significance of the Fuel shortage becomes clear.
I try to give timely advice on delays and to avoid unnecessary speed control which would increase fuel-burn.
There has been no high-light or guidance from managers at any level on my unit, and with regret there is widespread ignorance among colleagues.

[Trentino]

hi there 055166k. Maybe by our posts here British can see what has gone wrong with the system (ATC not knowing about british airways needs) and what can go right (ATC being very accommodating when realizing the situation)

Lets see where all this goes

Cheers

[FL050]

Just a question, but where did you get this info. from?

[euroflyer]

Interesting post but you do not need to increase power(burn more fuel) to increase rate of climb. By climbing at a lower speed you can climb quicker and with a higher pitch attitude. This would therefore not affect your fuel burn.
Regards

[Human Factor]

A better angle of climb doesn't necessarily mean a better rate. At the end of the day a wing can only give a certain amount of lift so can only lift a given weight so high. Basically, the heavier the aeroplane, the slower it climbs and the lower the altitude it can reach.

On the 777, we find we can often only comfortably reach FL350 rather than perhaps FL390. Once again, it's all weight dependent. In the terminal area, if we want to fly around clean (without flaps), we will be at about 220kts at the higher weights. The slowest we can fly clean at normal weights after a transatlantic flight would be about 205kts. It's not a big deal for us but other types are more critical.

[Spitoon]

I'm not wotking operationally at the moment and I must claim ignorance of the fuel problems that started this thread but I would offer the thought that when I was talking to aeroplanes I rarely knew what was in the RMK section of a FPL. It relied on good support staff to pick out the info and, more importantly, get it to the controllers along the route. I would guess a general RMK on many FPLs would not get much action. And anyway, the vast majority of flights are on RPLs so RMKs specific to a particular flight are not possible.

The best solution to a general problem is for the operator to contact ATC management....but, as 055166k might be illustrating, management are not very good at passing such messages on!

[Thunderbug]

This fuel issue has some surprising effects. Departed PHX in a 744 with 173,500Kg of gas last week (Officially takes 173,800Kg! :eek: ). Arrived at OCK for LHR and had to ask the controller if we could hold at 240kts. The Heathrow controllers seem to be on the case though as he promptly asked us what our final approach speed would be. It was in excess of 160kts - makes 160kts to 4 miles a bit tricky. This may have been the reason that we were given 09R for landing when everything else was on 09L.

The other issue is that we now have to regularly deal with tank icing. We landed from PHX with 60,000Kg remaining and had a large patch of ice on each wing. The fuel temp was -17. Outside was only +4, which gives little chance of it naturally melting prior to the next sector. Our deicing crews are very busy bees!

T'bug :ok:

[Anti-ice]

So are aircraft using LHR 'tankering' fuel in, as i was on a A319 last week that took a pretty full fuel load from CDG into LHR ?!

[Thunderbug]

Anti-ice
Shorthaul from Paris would be tankering - probably enough for the aircraft to return to Paris on its next sector.
From AIS (EGLL NOTAM)
EGTT/QFULT/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5129N00028W005
FROM 06/01/30 12:24 TO 06/03/30 12:00 EST A0151/06
E)HEATHROW AIRPORT IS EXPERIENCING REDUCED DELIVERIES OF JET FUEL.
IN ORDER TO ENSURE CONTINUANCE OF OPS, THE ARRANGEMENTS AGREED IN THE DRAFT HEATHROW FUEL CONTINGENCY PLAN (HFCP) WILL APPLY WIE.
THE SITUATION REMAINS UNDER CONSTANT REVIEW AND AS SUPPLIES AND STOCKS CHANGE FURTHER CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE OPERATIONAL IMPACTS ON EACH AIRLINE.
ALL INBOUND ACFT WILL MAXIMISE TANKERING OPPORTUNITIES. IN ADDITION TO TANKERING, FUEL RESTRICTIONS WILL ALSO APPLY. USING THE HFCP, EACH CARRIER WILL, ON A DAILY BASIS, BE ALLOCATED A PERCENTAGE OF THE PREVIOUS WEEKS TOTAL UPLIFT. THIS ALLOCATION CAN BE USED AT AIRLINES DISCRETION. ALL DEPARTING ACFT WILL RECEIVE FUEL, BUT ON A REDUCED BASIS - (REFLECTING NORMAL CONTINGENCY PRACTICE WORLDWIDE). THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS APPLY:
NEW ALLOCATION FOR VISITING CARRIERS AT LHR WILL BE AS FOLLOWS:
FLTS UP TO 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 40 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
FLTS OVER 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 70 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
NEW ALLOCATION FOR BASE CARRIERS:
FLTS UP TO 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 55 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
FLTS OVER 5 HR DURATION WILL RECEIVE 82 PER CENT OF NORMAL UPLIFT
CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO AIRLINES THAT PREDOMINANTLY OPERATE ACFT AT THE LIMIT OF THEIR RANGE. AIRLINES IN THIS CATEGORY SHOULD CONTACT THE AIRSIDE BUSINESS RECOVERY TEAM ON 020 8745 7582 TO ESTABLISH AN AGREEMENT.
THE SITUATION WILL BE MONITORED DAILY AND AIRLINES PERFORMANCE MEASURED, AS THE FUEL SITUATION DEVELOPS THE ALLOWANCES MAY BE ADJUSTED AND FURTHER NOTAM WILL BE ISSUED.
Certainly at my outfit, shorthaul is tankering into LHR enough fuel for the aircraft's next sector, subject to performance & structural limitations. Longhaul is tankering into LHR from a dozen selected locations.
T'bug:ok:

[Transition Layer]

Well it certainly makes the fuel order an easy decision at the moment when operating into EGLL! We'll take as much as we can fit on!

TL

[Gretchenfrage]

It comes down to a question of principal:
Should any other airspace/airport/aircraft have to take into consideration what's on the agenda in another place it has no influence on? Should any other airspace/controlling participant have to take this into his decision making? Can there be a penalty inflicted (i.e. holding) to another participant who would otherwise not be affected?
I truly believe NO.
Reason is that fuel might be scarce in one place, more expensive in another, highly subsidised for some and a matter of financial survival for many. Remember when Qantas flew direct to LHR resulting in multiple "short of fuel" messages and subsequently given priotity - protest rose quickly because, in the end, we all compete with each other and nobody can expect any edge just because at home he supposedly has some special agenda, or his operation is more critical.
Airspace has it's mutual and written rules who should apply to everybody. If we start giving small exceptions to one, then to two, even understandeable ones, then we will end up having a overly complicated environement.

This is just my oppinion, what do you think?
GF

[Thunderbug]

Gretchenfrage

I agree with some of what you say, but certainly the issue of tankering into LHR affects all operators. It is a case of force majeure. If you read the AIS carefully it states LHR has implemented a contingency plan. This indicates that it is an existing plan that people are aware of. It also states that it is following worldwide practice for such an event.

Airspace & ATC are there to accomplish the needs of their customers - i.e. the airlines. Rules do exist to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of traffic. i.e. Not RVSM approved then you stay below FL290. Last week ATC could have said "unable" to our request for holding at 240kts. We would have put some flaps out and held at the normal 220kts.
I don't expect aircraft to be dropping into my garden through lack of fuel. It is up to the operator & crew to ensure enough gas is on-board to achieve the task and suitable procedures for when you start to run short. The airspace system is there to assist if things do not go to plan. If somebody is taking the pi** and regularly using an emergency call to jump the queue - they should be dealt with.

Contingency plans regularly have to kick in with the airline industry. Airlines regularly have to devise alternative plans to deal with fuel shortages, runway, airport & airspace closures and restrictions, weather, disease (SARS). terrorism. The fact that we are still ticking along demonstrates what a flexible system we have. Users and providers working together. Adding too many "though shalt not..." rules will not provide much benefit and will probably be a disservice to all.

All views above are just my humble opinion....
T'bug:ok:

[MadameConcorde]

Hello all, is there a new Speedbird now that Concorde has retired? :confused:

hello everyone, last night I heard Speedbird, i think it was flight 112, departing out of JFK. During the climbout atc told them to 'pick of the rate of climb' Speedbird complied but quickly reminded them about the fuel shortage at Heathrow. To my astonishment and probably even to the Speedbirds astonishment, the controller was not aware of the shortage. After some conversation between the two, atc told them to operate at any advantageous speed. Atc was almost apologetic

[eyeinthesky]

Quote
Hello all, is there a new Speedbird now that Concorde has retired?
Unquote

Not sure what your question is. Speedbird is the ATC callsign for all mainline British Airways flights (with a few exceptions, I know!). So this is nothing new. As far as I know, the old 'Concorde' callsigns of "Speedbird 1, 2, 3, & 4" have not yet been used by any normal subsonic flights.

[PAXboy]

Non-pilot/ATC speaking. I can see that one should not make regular adjustments for the change of circumstances at another location, as one woul dbe adjusting all things and all the time.

The problem at EGLL/LHR is not of their own making and is going to be resolved. Obviously the timescale is not yet known as a lot more people have to be blamed and a lot more backhanders paid first. :E

Whilst it is true that the shortfall in delivery is not affecting everyone equally, it is such an unusual occurance that I would think it worth the while of others to assist aviation in general to mitigate the failure of supply.

But this thread was started by someone asking about rate of climb that he (apparently) heard through his scanner!

[PaperTiger]

Hello all, is there a new Speedbird now that Concorde has retired? :confused:Non, Madame. Speedbird is simply the callsign for most BA flights. It derives from the logo of the same name which was for a long time the emblem of British Airways and BOAC before that and Imperial Airways before that. Gone, but not forgotten.
http://adenairways.com/images/Speedbird.jpg

[BOAC]

Also known as 'birdseed':)

[wonderbusdriver]

Remarks deleted...
Got the point now.

Thanks to "longarm".

[longarm]

Wonderbus, I think the point is that because of the fuel shortage at LHR the flight was tanking JFK -LHR. Because of this they were very heavy and were probably doing as well as they could as far as ROC was concerned. The question of did they have enough fuel would not arise. They probably had enough to do JFK-LHR and then go half way back.

[dc8driver@night]

Interesting post but you do not need to increase power(burn more fuel) to increase rate of climb. By climbing at a lower speed you can climb quicker and with a higher pitch attitude. This would therefore not affect your fuel burn.
Regards

Euroflyer: You are partially right. Since the advent of Turbofan engines and the demise of Turbojet engines, there is only one “Climb Power” setting and true “Cruse Climbs” are a thing of the past. You are correct in stating that your merely increase pitch and thus rate of climb. Your are wrong in your statement about this does not cost fuel. As there is only one “Climb Power” setting, there is also only one “Best Rate of Climb Speed” and this is determined based on the aircraft weight on that day. As you slow down from that speed, you are increasing drag and thus using more fuel to travel the same distance. If you have to continue increasing the rate of climb, you will find the loss of airspeed and increase in drag may become critical. I have been asked to slow to 210 knots* in the climb until out of FL 250 by Center and found that at FL 250 it was impossible to accelerate to normal climbs speed without leveling off depending on our weight on that day. (*This was done by increasing pitch and thus rate of climb, never touching the thrust levers except to maintain “Climb Thrust” as we climbed to higher levels.) Both the pilot and ATC can help in saving fuel, but it requires proper procedures and knowledge as well as effective communication.

[Tight Slot]

Some turbofaned a/c still have a few climb thrust settings, eg the RR engined 757's. Its a balancing game between getting to opt. cruise level quickly, and fuel burn getting there. Using full climb thrust will get you into the nice thin air quicker, and some would say, save fuel - esp in if there are strong head winds down low. On other days, using a de rated climb all the way up can lead to a lower overall trip burn.

If theres other a/c fighting to get the opt. cruise levels then I'd tend to use full climb to get the best level before my chums on the same track can - makes quite a big diff over fuel burn in the trip.

[dc8driver@night]

Tight Slot: Your right about there still being a few de-rate thrust settings out there such as the 757 and 767. Both the PW & RR powered 757 have "De-rate Thrust Setting". This is NOT a fuel savings measure or approved by either engine manufacturer. It was a sales pitch by Boeing (dare I call it a gimmick?/ I am not bad mouthing them as I dearly love both of these aircraft!) to help sell the aircraft. Their claim was that it would reduce operating cost by reducing; engine wear, vibration, and noise. If you run the numbers or have the charts in your AOM, you will see less fuel burned in climb at Max Climb Thrust. If you will note, only UPS and Delta used De-rated Thrust on the PW 757, and both of them have had turbine blade failures related to harmonics in the hot section at de-rated climb settings. UPS at least no longer uses a de-rated climb setting on PW 757s. They may use a Reduced Take Off Thrust setting, but then go to Max Climb Thrust after cleaning up. Further, the RR 757 on De-rate 2, has a deep power reduction built in until you are cleaned up and climbing. I can’t remember if this is based on flap setting or Radio Altimeter as I have been off of the 757 for almost 4 years. This feature is for noise abatement, not fuel savings. The 757 requires the pilot to select a higher power setting as your climb degrades, but at least our 767s (GE) do this automatically as you climb based on FL instead of performance.

[Slimbitz]

In addition to the climb performance, hold/approach speeds, and post-flight wing icing, associated with tankering fuel into LHR, some more considerations spring to mind. Landing distance increases for higher landing weight, and the runway exit needs to be planned. Some company SOPs use only reverse idle for landing (+ autobrake) - if at higher weight more reverse should be considered. Turnround times may be tight, in which longer brake cooling time may become a factor.