Continental Pilots Say Jets Flying On Fumes

[armchairpilot94116]

Can't be as bad as they say can it?

http://cbs5.com/national/airline.fuel.fumes.2.593678.html

Happy Turkey Day everybody !!

[DA50driver]

"Shuttle astronauts have to rely on their coworkers"..... Thats great, but when the shuttle takes off and lands others are moved out of the way. We have to deal with a dynamic environment where all the unknowns factor in.(Like the guy ahead of us closing the runway etc).

I can think of a place I can put my "carbon" footprint on this guy. Besides that, if I run low on fuel on every flight I will perspire a lot, which will contribute to global warming.

Add a few hundred pounds of fuel for your kids, some for the wife and then some more just to irritate the bean-counters. Why? Because we can. We are in command of the airplane, not some dispatcher somewhere.

[merlinxx]

A sphincter twitching, is not safe a sphincter Mr Master Dispatcher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How's yours sport when the Feds come visit???????

[PaperTiger]

Is there a CBA up for renegotiation soon, by chance ?

:suspect:

[stilton]

You hit the nail on the head Paper Tiger.

Our contract is up for renewal next year.

The intimidation level has been increasing somewhat lately..

[Ignition Override]

The Continental Pilot Fuel Bonus program was described by "Aviation Week & ST" magazine in either the late 80s or early 90s. This was probably one of Lorenzo's "String Puppets' "projects. The FAA stopped the policy-and THAT Said Something, when the FAA decided not to rubber-stamp this.

About two years ago we were delayed into Newark (EWR) by a broken line of weather. After we deplaned, boarded and taxied out, we heard a CO 737 pilot check in with tower-they had already declared a fuel emergency and about two rescue trucks were cleared somewhere across runway 22R, only as a precaution, to meet them at 22L. For the unfamiliar, this entire area is by far the most congested airspace in the US, compounded by nearby LGA, JFK, ABE, MDT, PHL, Dover and McGuire AFB etc.

There may be no connection between that wise declaration to ATC (when necessary) and this new media story on the policies at CO.

My company has no formal policy as such (we would not tolerate it), and despite having several new Dispatchers, they tend to plan contingency and alternate fuel in a conservative manner, almost all of the time. Even the taxi fuel (i.e. 60 min. in ATL) adds to the airborne contingency fuel, when the weather is not bad. But weather forecast updates and observations often change quite fast.

[Shanwick Shanwick]

a memo from Continental has been released to pilots to urge pilots not to "indiscriminately" add fuel.

What's the problem with that?

[Otterman]

My airline also has a very tight fuel policy. The captain is responsible of course, and can add additional fuel. But the trend is monitored and if he/she falls outside the box it will be looked into (I know of only two cases in the last ten years though, where people were asked to explain themselves).

One thing I don't understand in this, is the fact that we never discuss unusable fuel. If we land with 45 minutes fuel (not rare at all), we always assume that it is indeed 45 minutes, while back in my little old cessna days there was a quantity that was considered unusable. In our FCOM's it does mention high pitch angles and the fuel pumps being layed bare causing further alarms, but that is about it. I can't imagine uninterrupted fuel flow all the way down to zero.

Question for me has always been, why is there no unusable fuel? And if there is such a thing, why isn't that then automatically added to your minimum 30 minutes (in order to make sure you have at least 30 minutes!).

Greetings O.

[FlyingCroc]

I wondered about that myself :}

[Fatfish]

Call Fuel PanPan and you are number One. Call Mayday and the skies part like the Red Sea. How convenient. Say a 10,000 Pound fine if Choxs with less than half hour in tanks may stop these buggers! :=

[Hunter58]

Otterman

Unusable fuel would be counted in your DOW. No need for you to know how much it is since you carry it as weight only. Although, I am sure it is mentioned somewhere in your W&B manual.

Revealing question, methinks...

[FLCH]

a memo from Continental has been released to pilots to urge pilots not to "indiscriminately" add fuel.
What's the problem with that?
That was just part of the memo, it adds that adding fuel just because you have a "feeling" is not a reason to indiscriminately add fuel, rather we should rely on flight planning software that the company has acknowledged in it's current form as inadequate ,but are making plans to improve it. I''ve never had a problem adding fuel if I want it, nor been called on the carpet. I'd rather trust my instincts and past experiences rather than rely on some "NASA" software. All it takes is one divert and I can promise you thats another 170 odd people that won't fly Continental again.

[Basil]

DA50driver,
Yup, you hit the nail right on the head.
In the RAF I didn't mind returning with 10 minutes fuel. I knew I could get straight in or land at the nearby satellite or bang out (when I was a stude).

Arriving at a busy airport is a totally different matter.
IMHO a bit of a silly letter.

[Mungo Man]

Certainly is unusable fuel in my aircraft. The manual states 21kg unusable per side under normal ops and 121kg unusable with electric fuel pumps inop... worth bearing in mind.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
For all of you flying Boeing aircraft, I suggest you acquaint yourselves with the Boeing "minimum fuel for approach" figures, you will get rather a surprise.

In general terms, if you want a 100% guarantee that all engines will still be running (fuel wise) at the end of the landing roll, you better have the ICAO "fixed final reserve" in tanks ---- 30min. @ 1500' holding fuel flow will do -- at the end of the landing roll.

From memory, the Boeing definition was based on an aircraft at 1500', on final in the landing configuration, and Boeing published figures for all types and variants, after a number of really serious incidents with a variety of aircraft, including more than one case of a 747-100 and 200 having one or more engines flame out on final, despite indicate and calculated "reserves" remaining. From memory, the "minimum fuel for approach" for a 747-100/200/300 is about 12,000lb.

One very well known international operator, as a result of the above "experiences" , has a requirement, where ever the aircraft lands, to have 30' min. in tanks at the end of the landing roll.

Don't be around, the day all the +/- inherent in any measuring system all wind up -.

Tootle pip!!

[kellmark]

Just a couple of points. In the US, flights operating as "domestic" flights within the continental US are required to have 45 minutes reserve at "normal cruise' (not at 1500 feet). This is usually a bit more than the 30 minute reserve at 1500 feet that is used in flag or international operations.
Also, as some have noted the reserve fuel does not mean you should ignore go-around or deck angle limitations that would uncover pumps at low fuel levels. These result in being committed to a landing and not being able to make a go around at the risk of fuel exhaustion.
Also, under US rules, flights that land with less than 45 minutes for domestic operations or 30 minutes in the case of flag operations are not considered to be an emergency situation, as exists under the JARs. As long as the flight was planned properly, and it lands safely, it is considered to be within the legal requirements even if it lands with less than reserve. That doesn't mean that a flight cannot declare minimum fuel state, or they can certainly declare an emergency if they feel the need.
And to the issue of pressure by management regarding saving fuel, this will not be the first or last time that this happens. It is to a certain degree a part of the business, especially in today's high fuel cost environment. But it doesn't take away the responsibility of the Captain and the Flight Dispatcher (in the US) to ensure that the flight is conducted with what they believe are safe fuel minimums under the circumstances of each flight.
Also, regarding the comment above about the "Master Dispatcher", I say this from the perspective of an FAA certified flight dispatcher with many years of experience, with a view that there have been plenty of times when yes, Captains added more fuel than I would have recommended, but there were also plenty of times when certain Captains wanted to reduce their fuel significantly below what was even minimally required, and I refused. On some of those occasions I even got comments from their F.Os thanking me.
Whenever a US dispatcher plans the fuel for a flight, he/she knows that they are signing the release along with the Captain and are held responsible for what they do by the FAA. We have a saying. It is "think about what you would say at the hearing".
It seems to me that the system we have in the US, where either the Captain or the Dispatcher may add more fuel, but neither may reduce fuel below what the other will agree to, is a safer way to deal with this subject.
Also, having both the Captain and Dispatcher agreeing with a minimum fuel, takes away a lot of the pressure on the crew from management. They cannot intervene and arbitrarily change it.
Also, I disagree with any carrier that implements a policy that rewards operational personnel for saving fuel or punishing them for not saving it. It sends the wrong message. Operational personnel should normally try to save fuel anyway, but should always be thinking of safety first and take whatever fuel they believe is justified by the operational circumstances.

[mabrodb]

SWA has some room to improve, which should make it relatively easy to regain some savings with little effort or re-training, e.g. CI36 (or 28 for classics) should be reviewed (and most likely lowered). I'd nearly bet those figures are not cost optimal, based on current ops vs. fuel costs.

The planned standard contingency fuel reserves using the following formula for flts between 2~4hrs of :35 is too simplistic (an :45 for those over 4hrs) and has no statistical basis, ie its not relavant to the city-pair. Think about operating a 3hr flt from LAX-SEA (snoozer). And compare that to a 2hr hop from FLA-BWI (white knuckler).

The price of fuel will force overly simplistic procedures and fuel policies to come under further review.

[Ignition Override]

Another extra major factor influencing fuel burn happens only in the hot humid summers in the US. Our contingency fuel does not include this fairly frequent
problem.

Last summer in Houston (IAH), we waited about an hour and a half for departure, but do to the inability for the old APU to keep the cabin/c0ckpit even halfway cool :(, I let an engine run at idle for the entire delay, which involved waiting at two different runways. Only the east departures were directly affected, but even northbounds were held a long time.

We were about 5-10 minutes from a min. fuel situation when we took off, and this lasted for the entire flight. Halfway to the destination, I sent a message to Dispatch stating that if ATC gave us any delays enroute, anywhere, we would divert to whichever midwestern airport was nearby, at least near the destination (mostly good weather was north of DFW/OKC). Being late to the destination resulted in almost no traffic in front of us.

You always decide to draw a line in the sand somewhere when necessary, after looking at all factors, including ideas of the other pilot(s) and Flight Engineer, if you are fortunate enough to have one behind you. Many of you are not required to choose between a liveable temperature and making it to the dest., with no accurate info on how much contingency you WILL use, just to keep semi-cool.

Only many years of experience help us anticipate just how much into that extra, new safety "corner" we might go. Any "mission-oriented thinking" is no longer on the "list". Winter offers different factors, not just the question on whether we will be inside the de-icing holdover time, or can safely land at the next nasty frozen airport with a landing weight of about 108,000 pounds and a direct 15-knot crosswind.

[777Contrail]

Question.

How much of a fuel guage error is allowed by the manufacturer of your aircraft before a callibration is needed?

1%,3% or 5%? On a full tank!

Is the error positive or negative?


And you want to take nothing extra!

[FlexibleResponse]

I've always scratched my head about the role of someone who doesn't jump on board with me for the flight, being involved in determining the fuel that will be loaded for that flight.

It stands to reason that any trained person can determine the legal minimum fuel to be carried on any particular flight, but to try and influence a Captain on his decision on what fuel load is appropriate? Does this only happen in the USA or it's colonies?

Obviously all of your flight-deck crew must be consulted and feel free to suggest or even advise on what might be carried. But in the end, the sole responsibility for the final decision can only rest with one person.

They say a camel was a horse that was designed by a committee decision...

In this regard, Continental has very right to remind Captains that due to high fuel prices that extra fuel should not be uplifted except where the Commander determines that extra fuel is required for sound operational reasons (as determined by the Captain).

[rigpiggy]

On average, I take an extra 20 mins over minfuel. I just don't like Fuel LoW lights winking at me. Even if it's only during taxi in!

[mabrodb]

my understanding is that at full tanks the Boeing (modern, since 1980s) have a slight negative fuel guage error at full tanks totalizer, but have ZERO fuel guage error at zero fuel totalizer. The fuel tank gauge error is related to the total fuel on board.

[stilton]

Not to belabour the obvious, but I doubt there are many operators worldwide (that pay for their fuel!) not emphasizing, pressuring? their pilots to take any more than minimum fuel.

A twist on this though is a recent memo praising one of our finest for removing a substantial quantity of the planned fuel load after deciding he/she did not 'need that much'

It was emphasized how much money this saved..

I don't really think we need to encourage this !

[G-STAL]

In response to the question on FQIS accuracy.

I believe the minimum designed accuracy of fuel quantity indication systems is 5%. However most modern systems are accurate to 3%. Some systems also have error indications that will advise you if the system is gauging to an accuracy of less than 3%.

In practice geater accuracies are hard to achieve as the "accuracy" of the fuel is only around 1% (as its properties vary a lot).

FQIS systems are on condition. There may be a serviceability check in major servicings, but mostly the maintenance processes will rely on pilot-reported problems. There is no accuracy limits for maintenance in terms of percentages; but there will be limits in the standard tests. based on mass indications.

In practice modern systems are very robust and the digital systems will remove the inputs from suspect probes. The older summing systems do carry errors though, and often maintenance crews calibrate out the errors, which is not really how the system should work.

The best way to maintain accuracy of capacitance systems is to drain the water regularly, and for pilots to report accurately any percieved errors and fluctuations.

It isn't easy to work on the systems, particularly when in-tank maintenance is required. Too often, to avoid the cost, simple measures like replacing the indicator (repeatedly) is carried out to keep the plane flying.

It's not all doom though. As the errors are %-based, the system normally gets more accurate as you burn fuel (1% of 5000kgs vs 1% of 20,000kgs). Unless fuel draining isn't carried out regularly, whereby fungus can form on the probe causing it to overead.

[Ignition Override]

Two years ago, for the first time, some people in my company decided that the Dispatch Release fuel could be reduced by 200 pounds, without a new release or amendment.

I wonder which management "suit(s)" pocketed a cash bonus for that slight operating cost reduction idea? Many of their cost-savings were later somewhat nullified when the Upper Mgmt "Team":E were given about $300,000,000 worth of free corporate stock.

This Release Fuel policy change only happened because of high fuel prices-there can be no other possible reason. Sure, our APU burns about that much when we sit on the ground about 45 minutes after fueling.

If our Dispatch Supervisors ever had the sole authority to determine the maximum fuel we could carry (which they never will: with all due respect, they are not in the c0ckpit with us), it would be like the HMOs :E here telling doctors whether your required medical procedure can be paid for, or should something much less effective be prescribed for your major medical condition...

[jezzbaldwin]

I'm in the process of starting an airline ... (nothing special, actually just a small GA operation), however AC commanders will ALWAYS be encouraged to err on the side of safety. For us it will be the cashflow cost of an uplift (rather than the fuel/mass penalty) that will be the greatest problem ....

However ......

Departure delay after start-up (common for GA types at Intl airports) followed by stronger headwinds than forecast, followed by a hold at destination, followed by a weather go-around, followed by further holding, coupled with fuel guage/totaliser error, followed by a serene silence on the next app, followed by an impact between AC and small planet ..... End of my business.

Therefore .......

Dont skimp on the fuel.

OK, so a small GA operation will not have the same commercial considerations as the big guys, and nor will the fuel planning have such an impact on the bottom line.

But .......

I question if my operation would have the same corporate attitude to fuel uplift if I were not a pilot. I think not!!!

[boardpig]

I might be missing the point here (wouldnt be the first time either) but why is there a pressure to uplift less fuel for a leg, if the fuel you don't use will only be used for the next leg?

I realise this might seem too simplistic but surely if you lift say 15% more than you need and don't use it, it doesn't go anywhere, it simply gets integrated into the next leg calculation and used there, hence that leg will have less of an uplift than it normally would. Since its all from the same company coffers, surley it all evens out? This would cater for the holds, unforseen headwinds etc which would and will happen anyways. Just means you wouldn't have to divert and upset all your pax. Again sorry if I'm missing the point here.
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're fire.
:)

[sevenstrokeroll]

so, only allow big planes to fly, reducing ATC woes and delays, and thereby reducing the extra fuel required

[boardpig]

Understood, suddenly it makes sense (or not if you get me).

[PACIFIC BARON]

The bottom line is that any weight, & that includes fuel, costs money, & that means fuel, to carry it from point of departure to point of destination. The problem is, that as a commander, sometimes the decision to put on extra fuel creates the problem that you were hoping to avoid. i.e. the more fuel you put on, the heavier you are, the lower the altitude the are able to maintain relative to other traffic. END RESULT. you have created your own worst nightmare> FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EXPERIENCE cannot be bought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:):):):):):)