How much fuel do you carry?

[hassel]

Article in FT obviously taken from CHIRP
Airlines' fuel policy may add to stress on pilots
By Vanessa Houlder
Published: May 13 2001 21:26GMT | Last Updated: May 13 2001 21:53GMT



The company culture of some British airlines could be prompting pilots to reduce the fuel taken on commercial flights, according to a report by the Civil Aviation Authority, the air safety regulator.

The review said it was conceivable that the application of excessively tight fuel policies could add to the perceived mental pressure on pilots, leading to poor decision-making and increased risk of accidents.

The survey of 14 operators found no evidence that company fuel planning processes contravened official requirements. It said it was harder to measure the impact of company culture on questions such as whether pilots should accept extra payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of contingency fuel.

It said that although none of the operators had specified unreasonable guidelines about the amount of fuel with which commanders might depart, this was difficult to reconcile with some reports that had been received from flight crews.

It urged companies to address "the manner in which flight crews interpret their company culture on fuel planning". The review said some operators were reported to use "league tables" that ranked commanders who took more fuel on flights than stipulated by computer flight plans.

My main concern with this sort or reporting is the effect it could have on CHIRP.

[Yak Hunt]

Enough to keep out of trouble!
Seriously, it costs approx ten quid to carry an extra One Tonne of fuel for an hour, so 20min holding approx 600kgs costs around six quid an hour to carry! I think any flight into a busy airport that does not carry that quite frankly needs their head examined.
Yes I can see that Six quid X hundreds of thousands of flights is a lot.
When I see ten very expensive meals go in the bin........
Crews passengering unecessarily.........
Unnecessary Hotac..........
Inefficient rostering...........
I am all for an efficient airline, however I think this fuel thing is out of perspective. There are much better ways of saving money.
However at the end of the year the bean counter can say to the board
'If we can get the pilots to carry less fuel you would have £6 x the number of flights in your coffers'
So they can blame pilots, and in my experience - guess who hate Pilots the most!!
I am not condoning taking silly amounts of fuel, but come on you are in Millions of pounds worth of gear and a lot of Human life, not to mention your peace of mind.
Let's keep this in perspective, if an airfield regularly has 20 min holding without notice and you do not carry that as a matter of course, that is not the sort of airmanship older and wiser pilots than me had the good sense to tell me!
Let's attack the real waste.

[This message has been edited by Yak Hunt (edited 14 May 2001).]

[SOPS]

Our company standard is "how much would you like above min block guys?" Yeh sure if block is 10,200kgs and we order 19,500kgs, someone might ask some questions, but in day to day operations the Captain/Crew has the final say and that is that.

As far as running a "who is taking the most fuel" list is concerned, that seems to be the quickest way to an accident I have ever heard of.

[wonderbusdriver]

As much as we deem necessary.
So far it´s mostly been whoever in the crew "offers" the highest number.
We´re paid to make "wise" decisions.
In your whole flying career you´ll never cover the cost of a diversion, by ordering the legal minimum.

SOPs last sentence sums it all up (think Garuda or MAS or whoeveritwas...)

[BOEINGBOY1]

my theory is,
you can never be carrying too much fuel, except "when you are on fire"

[hassel]

My main reason for this thread was that the article was lifted from the last issue of CHIRP.

[MAR10]

Fuel eqauls time, and considering time being a valuable resource in an abnormal situation I would give praise to a Crew that gives itself and its pax a safer ride. Giving in to company pressure is not good airmanship.


------------------
If it feels wrong - it usually is !

[lee1]

test

[FE Hoppy]

Same story in the Guardian Europe edition today (Torygraph sold out before I got to the news stand).
Q. Do you use 3 or 5% contingency and if 3% on what grounds?

[scanscanscan]

Todays 6.30am BBc radio two news.. " The Uk Caa has said it will ground any UK airline that keeps legue tables on its pilots fuel loads or pressurises Captains about fuel above Computer"
This does NOT solve the problem for foreign airline pilots who arrive in big airliners with nearly dry tanks over London and are generally not fully alert after many hours of flight and are not fully familiar with short distance diversions.
It is a tentative start bought on by the power of the press and is politicaly correct and supported just prior to an election.
Not the time the government wants to have a flame out over London or with this lot on record on pprune.
This min fuel madness is so dangerouse that I do not care who finally forces thoes in authority to act or where they get their information from as long as it forces the UK Caa to take action and do their bl..dy job of aiding not destroying safety.
This fuel situation has become common knowledge thanks to pprune which is becomeing the modern day chirps and importantly appears the only way to get the Caa to do something before the tomb stones.

[Bigpants]

We use fuel tables and I do think it encourages some unhealthy competition. What is more worrying is that some of the flight plans we employ are very optimistic.
For example from a UK regional airport to Frankfurt our flight plan uses Hahn as a diversion, assumes from top of descent to landing using 400kg and gets you on the ground with 2,100kg.
Not much for an A319 but enough into a small quiet airfield on a nice day when you are familiar etc etc. Frankfurt however is not small or quiet and not suprisingly I ended up at Hahn this winter. Nice people and we turned round pretty quick but it all rather defeats the point of going with minimums.
I was at least aware of the risks of going with minimums. I am not sure we all are and it would be a pity if someone learns the hard way.
Regards and safe flying

[Twistedfirefighter]

I work for an AIRLINE, yes an airline and that involves carrying fuel. I have NEVER EVER taken minimum fuel and I NEVER EVER will. I always carry an extra 1000kg (737)and more if need be. Nobody has ever questioned this and if they ever do my answer is - you've put me in charge I AM IN CHARGE. Extra fuel carried is not for the benefit of the company, it's for the well being of the flight crew!!!

[Wig Wag]

From todays Daily Telegraph:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000155773445836&rtmo=rQFFDDXX&atmo=tttttttd&pg=/et/01/5/15/ncaa15.html

This should put a stop to any pressure, perceived or otherwise, to carry any less than the fuel you personally want.

[CargoOne]

I believe that min fuel uplift questions could arise when you operating with performance limitations (short/hot/high runway or long distance). In such case additional 1 tone of fuel means you need to disemark 10 pax or 1 tone of cargo, isn't it?
Any Maersk drivers here? Are you departing exactly with min required fuel to/from FAE on 735, keeping in mind you constantly disemabarking cargo or even(?) baggage to stay within avail LW/TOW to/from FAE, where diversion is very likely (weather is always bad), and alternates are far away?

[Herod]

I work for a much-maligned UK airline, BUT there is never a problem with fuel. We are made aware that it costs money to carry extra, but there the story ends. Captains are expected to be responsible enough to carry what they consider sensible. That said, if I do carry more extra than normal, I annotate the flight plan with an explanation, so should there ever be a query, I have the good reason to hand (forecast Cb, turbulence etc, possible re-routeing, changing of levels). Long may the operations department have the say on this matter, not the accountants.

[Rammstein]

Has anybody of you ever tried to fly regularly with "min fuel"?

I am working for a company which is encouraging us crews to use min t/o fuel as offen as possible if we feel satisfied with the overall conditions.

And guess what!!! It works.

In nearly 5 years of flying I only was once close to the point, where we had to consider opting for "commitment to stay", which is still a safe procedure.

The point is, and that is the way we handle it, you as the crew have to take into account the situation you will most possibly expect, and if you take extra, you just make a short comment about why. There is no sense in flying min fuel to FRA when approaching during the high season of the day. But most places (at least where we are operating to) usually have the potential of using min fuel procedure.

And another thing to mention, which seems pretty interesting, is the fact, that under certain conditions we are even flying without alternate. And this also works out quite well, but only with an experienced crew able to anticipate what to expect.

I thing, that the enroute alternate conditions in Western Europe gives us enough room to maneuver to give more considerations to the ecological as well as economical points. And as long as new procedures are implemented, which proof to be safe, I will do my very best to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and to safe fuel.

[Fluckbynight]

Rammstein
Brilliant, I love you!!
(sorry but I couldn't stop myself)
In future I will travel with Min. feul and no Alt. and the CAA and my Pax. and the earth, will love me too. Thankyou for your wisdom.

[MAR10]

Rammstein, the original topic as I understand is concerning company pressure on flightcrews regarding amount of fuel carried.
Amount of fuel could be minimum required if equipment as well as conditions permit, but who makes the decision and has final responsibility?

------------------
If it feels wrong - it usually is !

[hassel]

Sorry original thread was that this was lifted from CHIRP and this has been ignored.
Maybe you are not bothered by this I am.

[trevrep]

BOEINGBOY1; Couldn't have put it better! (This should be read aloud whilst attempting to speak as Sir Winston Churchill!) "we should ask ourselves not the cost of carrying extra fuel but the cost of one unecessary diversion. ...- ...-

[Flanker]

Rammstein

Hope your luck holds out.

Being the fuel saving Green Friend of the Earth you so obviously are,I assume your company never tankers fuel?

[NigelOnDraft]

Another line of thought...

Does it matter (safety wise) how much fuel you depart with? What matters is what action you do (or do not) take as it runs low...

Our fuel policy is to try and take Flt Plan fuel. Most do, or close to it. If we run short, we shout to ATC, divert, bleat to Ops to swap EATs etc. I do not know of any cases where anyone has seriously got low on fuel.

Its between Mgmt and ATC to call a stop to it when there are too many PAN calls, diversions etc.

Just an alternative way of looking at it...

NoD

[Pirate]

Were my airline to introduce a fuel league table, which I'm sure it won't, I think that it is true to say that all the captains would compete like mad - to make bottom position.

[Warped Factor]

NoD,

I thought ATC had already called a halt to EAT swopping?

WF.

[harpy]

NigelOnDraft
If, after departing on minimum flt plan fuel, you have to shout to ATC, swap EAT etc, you will be putting someone else under pressure and perhaps reducing his safety margin.

To say it is for management and ATC to call a stop when there are too many Pan calls, diversions etc suggests that you are expecting them to take responsibility for the safe management of your flight.

[sweeper]

rammstein.
please tell me who you operate for ,so i can make sure that "me and mine" are not exposed to that crap..
if it was a joke then it was in bad taste.

[wonderbusdriver]

Rammstein:

Fom your attitude, due to an experience ca. 7 yeras ago about "the difference of 280 kias vs. 320kias" between DUS and TXL, I assume it could be...

Deutsche BA?

Tell me I´m wrong, if I´m wrong.

[critcaact]

Yak Hunter's comment regarding cost of carrying fuel reminds me of a rather humorous story. Or at least I think so. I was told this by an eye witness.

It seems a very senior DC-10 Captain was being given a company line check. At the dispatch office the Captain ordered 20,000 pounds more than minimum. The Check Airman (junior seniority as they often are in the US) piped up and told the Captain that it would take an additional 2,000 lbs of fuel to carry his requested 20,000 additional extra pounds of fuel. To which the very senior gray hair re-ordered his fuel and requested 22,000 pounds1

[Critical Mach#]

Never with Min Fuel.

I feel I have a responsability both towards the paxs who trust me for a safe journey and towards the employer who pays my checks to protect his investment.

Giving in to pressure with respect to fuel does nothing for the overall performance of the company and places our paxs and airline at risk. If the company is to go under it will not be for the extra fuel we carry. It is difficult to draw a line between economic and safe/sensible but someone its got to draw it and it happens to be us.

A little story...

A couple of years ago someone convinced our management that we were uplifting too much fuel and requesting too much extra fuel (about 30 min) and intructed flight dispatchers to keep a daily record of captains requesting fuel above Min. After a month of running this show they stopped all the sudden.They found found out that during that month uplifted fuel had gone up by almost 10%.

Today is the day when they still worry about fuel but the unofficial word is "Don´t let fuel become your first problem".

Yak Hunt:
I agree with you...there many other ways to reduce costs.

P.S. Glad "commitment to stay" is not an option for us.

[Genghis McCann]

Are these guys for real? If you take min fuel you have by definition no fuel to hold with. It is frankly insanity unless you have to and then you need to be very sharp about diverting.

I work for a regional turboprop operator who have never once questioned a single fuel decision I have made. I appreciate not being badgered to do something stupid - long may it continue.

[Sand Spider]

At this time of year the weather is fine; the birds sing; a light breeze caresses right down the runway. I can see the runway at LGW from Detling, no trouble at all. But...what's that? Oh no, not again, those charter cowboys have blocked the runway yet again. What is it this time? A wayward cowling? Oh....silly me, of course not, nothing so temporary: they've dug a wheel in the verge again. Still, with no holding fuel and no diversion fuel, I'll just have to land on top of them!!!!

------------------
Common sense is the least common of all the senses.

[PaulDeGearup]

Just a couple of thoughts on the carriage of fuel.

It ain't what you depart with that counts, it's what you arrive with. No point in putting yourself in an awkward situation by arriving with too little fuel to allow for unforeseen problems or delays etc.

Besides when you get to the Lambourne hold and don't have enough fuel to hang around for 30 mins you will end up taking your pax, who have paid to go to LHR, to STN or LGW or, God forbid, LTN. Neither they, nor the company will be too pleased.

An average pax, during his/her travelling lifetime is probably worth around £300K to your airline - if they come back. One diversion can be enough to change their brand loyalty. Suddenly 3% or £10 to carry an extra tonne seems cheap !

[This message has been edited by PaulDeGearup (edited 17 May 2001).]

[Herod]

Sand Spider. The last time I went around at Gatwick (having reduced to just about min fuel in the Willow hold), it was because a well known ex-British-state-airline translated "clear immediate" into "just a minute old chap, must check the cheese board first". Yes, it was a beautiful day, but Midhurst-Mayfield is a long way, when you would really like a short visual circuit.

[M.Mouse]

PauldeGearup

In my company most people take flightplan fuel most of the time unless we deem it appropriate to take extra. I have only once come close to diverting in 15 years due lack of fuel and that was due LHR single runway ops with SRAs on to 09L. Holding delays initially 50 - 60 mins.

Carrying 10 or 15 mins extra in that situation would not help and I certainly would not commit in that situation either. Net result diversion with or wothout a little extra.

As it happened they got the problems resolved quite quickly and we arrived at LHR.

If you care to investigate the reasons for diversions due lack of fuel I think you will find the diversion would have occured with or without extra fuel due to a major problem at destination.

Certainly the fuel policy in my company works and has done for many years. Most arguments for routinely carrying extra 'just in case' do not stand serious scrutiny.

[fireflybob]

Jet engines do not work very well on air!

Basically, there are only two fuel figures - full wings or full tanks!

Reminds me of the story years ago of the ramp agent coming on the flight deck and advising the captain that he had reduced the fuel figure since the load was a lot lower than expected.

Come departure time the captain was nowhere to be seen. Eventually he was tracked down back at home again. When asked why he had disappeared he said that as the ground agent seemed to know better then he did what the fuel load ought to be then he would be better equipped to be the captain of the aircraft!

By the way, this is not casting aspersions on ground agents for whom I have great respect!

Perhaps we need a placard on the back of the left hand seat which says "The buck stops here!"

------------------

[DownIn3Green]

For the sake of argument, let´s say you do everything right, are careful and thoughtful about your fuel decision, and decide that your flight will be totally safe today with flt plan minimum fuel.

It´s a long flight, and thus planned at FL350 @ M .80.

On climb out departure clears you to FL 260, and please contact next sector for higher. Next sector clears you to FL280, sorry but higher is not available due to traffic.

What now?

Or say higher is available but please maintain M .76 because you´re behind a 737-400.

What now?

Just food for thought.

By the way, I am in the very fortunate position of not having to worry about fuel load or costs as I fly a one A/C VIP operation, and the boss insists on full fuel always. (based on A/C limitations)However, in the past I always carried a little over flt plan minimum for mom and the boys back home.

[fireflybob]

Downin3green,

Isn't this what contingency fuel is for?

My experience is that although one might start with a non flight plave level things usually improve later on. On certain occasions one can re-route to get a more favourable level.

------------------

[DownIn3Green]

Firefly,

Yes and that is my point. Depending on the company or flight planning service used, you may not always have contingency fuel.

I was just trying to say that lots of things can happen to cause fuel remaining at top of descent to be a lot less than one would like if they don´t add some extra to the "flight plan" amount.

[Rammstein]

Sorry I couldn't answer to your replies to my comment earlier, but I also somtimes have to work.

At least I brought up some discussion to this matter. But still I have the impression, that my thoughts and understanding of this matter needs some clarification about what I mean.

MAR10, if you look at my wording, you will see that my feeling is that the decision on how much fuel to carry lies solely with the crew. Any pressure by the company to push anybody on how much fuel to carry, in my eyes, disqualifies the management, showing it is unable to lead an airline.

Next it looks like everybody has different understanding about what min fuel means. To me it is the minimum fuel to carry according to law to ensure a safe flight. It includes Taxi, Departure, Enroute, Approach, Contingency, Missed Approach, Climb out, Flight to Alternate, Approach to Alternate, and a safty reserve as specified by the authorities.

So, with this clarification, I hope I can convince some of you, that it is not unsafe to fly with my company.

Now, experience has shown, that with our flight plan calculation, you usually land with a lot of fuel above min diversion remaining. So the question I tried to arise is: Is it really necessary to carry any extra fuel?

Now to the concerns about getting the wrong FL or being vectored around a littlebit. If, at least for longer flights, you know the performance of your aircraft, you usually should find ways (reducing cost index, reclearance calculation, etc.) to adjust to the adverse situation, if !! you really find out that you are using up your contingency.

The last point to mention is the flight plan calculation your company is providing you with. At least our flight plans are individual calculations, considering high consumption for each individual aircraft. Our company provides us with information about what is considered in the these calculations. Still we try to cross-check these calculations provided as much as possible, as there still might be some mistakes in there. As I said above the decision lies solely with the crew.

And I can assure you that, if I feel any uncertainty about what to expect, I will also carry etra fuel. If I fly to a new airport for example or if I have to approach FRA during high season, you bet I will take at least 30 min or an hour extra.

On the other hand, as long as you are not sure on how to trust your company flight plan, I understand anybody always carrying extra fuel to stay safe.