Fuel economy and pilots reward.

[CortaVento]

Gentlemen,

One of the airlines in this country decided to initiate a "fuel economy program" based on pilot participation in which the target level of economy will be evaluated on a monthly basis and pilots will (or not) be rewarded on a six month basis. Of course this subject is being criticized by many and supported by others. Main concern is a break on the safety commitment as many pilots could be more driven to save costs. There is also a serious concern regarding ranking the pilots by their personal "performance". I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this matter as I am not aware about similar programs being implemented in other airlines.

[marianoberna]

this reeks of one engine out finals, avoiding go-arounds at all costs, etc:=:=:=:=

[Roger Greendeck]

Its a blunt instrument that has be tried before and will end in tears.

There are lots of things companies can do to reduce fuel comsumption other than just asking pilots to take less. Controlling the weight of items on the aircraft (rubbish, catering loads etc), regular engine washes, aircraft husbandry to reduce drag. All of them cost money and effort but they do work.

Ranking pilots on their fuel loads does not take into account the risk management on the day. It is quite possible for pilots to take high risk fuel loads and be lucky and under this type of system they will be rewarded for what are in fact really bad choices. Probability being what it is though when you cut corners on a large number of flights the company will inevitably have incidents and if this results in an accident the company may not survive. Penny wise, pound foolish.

[bubbers44]

We had a pilot that did everything to save fuel. The company asked him to show how he did it and he refused because he was afraid of being fired for what he did. His FO's didn't like his techniques either.

[Capt Claret]

I'm an unabashed fuel maximist, to the extend that even in Australia where an alternate is not mandated, if I'm operating to a single runway airport, and I can carry alternate fuel, I will do so.

I've been told it's not necessary, just use fixed and variable reserve to get to another field, and if I land with less than required reserves, it doesn't matter as I had the legal required amount on departure.

I've been told if some one does a wheels up, land over the top, or before the wreck, and stop. Or land on a taxiway.

I reject these options believing I could never explain such a decision/s to a board of enquiry, when it all goes wrong. I subscribe to the belief that the tanks, usually in the wings are called fuel tanks for a good reason.

A wise colleague put it best, when he once said that if one always travels with minimum fuel, one is statistically much more likely to come to some sort of grief. Whereas if one has "plan-b" fuel whenever possible, the statistical chance of things going pear-shaped the same day as one cannot carry said "plan-b" fuel is significantly reduced.

At the end of the day, the pax don't want to end up at some diversion port because the PIC was aiming for a fuel saving bonus, and didn't cary any plan-b. :8

[bubbers44]

I have never landed an airliner with less than 45 minutes fuel because I didn't let dispatch do it to me. They tried several times but did my own calculations and ignored their plan. I have posted a couple of examples so won't bore you again. They are sitting in a dispatch office and you are in an aircraft with limited fuel so do what you have to do and screw them in their comfy chair. Also, if you are the FO, don't let the captain be stupid because he believes them. Had to deal with that once too going into SJC with all airports below minimums and he wanted to shoot a minimums approach with everybody diverting to SMF. I talked him into diverting and we got there first with a gate and SJC went below minimums so we would have been in serious trouble.

[de facto]

I get paid well for fuel saving and still alive:E

[BOAC]

I believe there is an argument for a professional, understanding and sensible airline management (OK, I know.....) to look at overall excess fuel on arrival for Captains, but not the way this is mooted. Any such 'analysis' would need to be factored by airport 'busyness', weather, actual/planned loads and many other factors, and should be run in consultation with the pilots' representatives.

I'll stop dreaming now........................

[Slasher]

...I eliminated fuel as a stressor yonks ago. I take what I need
for any sector on any given day - and to buggery with what the
bloody armchair experts at ops think or the silly "save fuel and
get rewarded" idiot games the flight dept pulls now and then.

I save fuel in other ways - usually enroute and keep an eye on
favorable winds other than optimum, and delaying engine start
on the roll with 2 guys pushing back ahead of me is another. Of
course there are other methods much safer than scoring browny
points for keeping fuel in the fuelling truck instead of the plane
where it belongs.

- When they're called air tanks iso fuel tanks I'll stuff 'em with
lousy Scotch and oily rags. Till then I'll take whatever go-juice
is needed to keep my arse safe and cope with the unexpected.

FOs like it because fuel is scrubbed off their cockpit stress list
when I'm around.

[Dufo]

Oh the endless 'is there a chance direct to..', 'can you please coordinate with', 'we have a request..', 'would appreciate'..
There are no priorities for fuel-saving companies. Period. First in, first out.

[Linktrained]

In the early 1970s as the first fuel crisis started, one of our aircraft arrived at base from Central Africa with more than double the expected fuel remaining. Operated by a Training Captain, I was asked to find his technique, or his short cut, so that it could be applied by all crews. We had only one aircraft which was calibrated in lbs, the rest of the fleet were in kgs. ( Just guess... The best Training Captains really ARE human, too!)
Another fleet night-stopped in Africa, so Captains used the time to have the exterior of the aircraft cleaned and they paid for this out of the Captains' Flight Funds. On a range- critical sector, this reduced the number of Tech-stops. That is until there was an internal accountancy debate, "Should this be costed to Engineering or Flight Operations ? "

At the time we were not required to tell the Company why we had overshot or diverted... Just not to do either, too often. I would guess that these occurred on far less than 1% of flights, and probably for what seemed, at the time, to be good reasons. (Hindsight might have differed.)

[RAT 5]

I'm always curious about the desk jockeys that come up with this B.S. The same with fuel leagues. You launch off, engage VNAV and autopilot at 1000'; crz at optimum; descend in VNAV via a STAR or radar; complete a CDA in low drag and land; taxi-in on 1 engine and shutdown. What more can you do? Some companies don't like short visual approaches; some guys get lucky with short-cuts, some don't; some guys get straight in's due to wind, other have to go the long way round for the reciprocal; some guys get the full STAR due time of day, others at night get a direct as STD. It's all such a lottery that to attach some magical skill to fuel saving is not honest. It's easier to identify those who are consistently on the high side rather than give Oscars to those running on fumes.

[TSIO540]

It's fun trying to save fuel between Hong Kong and Beijing where you're given a cruise level 10,000ft below optimum and descent to FL187 300nm out..

i'd be interested in seeing something like a fuel bonus system where bonuses are paid for not exceeding CFP trip fuel burn up until the missed approach point with the caveat that you shall carry not less than CFP fuel (being int'l we have to have an alternate) and missed approach fuel burn is excluded. Results are then deidentified and averaged across all crews each month.

[Slasher]

I'm sure TSIO would agree with my practice of "sticking
an extra tonne" on top of CFP to PEK and PVG before I
even start to examine the NOTAMs and wx. China is on
a completely different planet.

[TSIO540]

I'm sure TSIO would agree with my practice of "sticking
an extra tonne" on top of CFP to PEK and PVG before I
even start to examine the NOTAMs and wx. China is on
a completely different planet.

Agreed. On certain routes 1000kg of 'ATC' fuel is appropriate.

[autoflight]

Seems so far that the most brownie points incorrectly go to those who stick to minimum flight plan fuel. It seems of little consequence that an unexpected diversion is required or a Mayday call to arrive with sufficient fuel. That is the world according to some.

The realistic world would would consider the complete forseeable circumstances of each flight. Before departure, if we are not going to project our thinking to the end of the flight, why are we pilots?

On an A320 I rarely added less than 500 Kgs, but every sector was carefully considered according to weather and other conditions, traffic and my experience on that route. Sometimes, slow speed, low level vectoring can easy eat up a ton or more. If you experienced that at your destination previously, better continue to consider it during peak traffic periods.

There are more ways to save costs than by using less fuel and sometimes these other savings are superior. Running close to your absolute limit on crew duty time? As an example, perhaps taking through fuel and saving refuelling time on one turnaround could enable same day mission completion.

Stress free arrivals send a clear message to ATC. This crew is professional. Next time there is a direct tracking request or less runway length can be accepted for expedited departure those professionals have improved opportunities. If your company is making fuel madays, equal consideration might be just a coincidence.

[Denti]

@john, even on short european sectors it depends. Would i go with plog fuel to frankfurt, london heathrow, paris, madrid or barcelona? Of course not. But it is of course fine to small backwater places with little traffic if the weather is ok.

[BOAC]

Would i go with plog fuel to frankfurt, london heathrow, paris, madrid or barcelona? - not even with multiple independent runways, good weather and in the 'quiet' period? You could always divert if you felt the need.

[MrHorgy]

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but how about recruiting experienced pilots who have the knowledge already to make efficient fuel decisions, rather than mindless sausages from the training schools? And let's say.. Paying them a decent wage to make such decisions?

[autoflight]

It is really all about being in control

[Airmann]

get the passengers to peddle

[de facto]

Slasher

Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,584
I'm sure TSIO would agree with my practice of "sticking
an extra tonne" on top of CFP to PEK and PVG before I
even start to examine the NOTAMs and wx. China is on
a completely different planet.


And please enlighten us on how often have you actually had to use this extra fuel..

[Capn Bloggs]

And please enlighten us on how often have you actually had to use this extra fuel..
How often have you had to call on your insurance because your house burnt down? ;)

[oceancrosser]

It's fun trying to save fuel between Hong Kong and Beijing where you're given a cruise level 10,000ft below optimum and descent to FL187 300nm out..


Aaah, they seem to have taken the "best practice" in ATC procedures from both the FAA and Eurocontrol. :ugh:

[Linktrained]

" ......You could always divert if you felt the need."

Diversions normally add flight mileage, with its flight time, landing and handling fees and the time to reposition for the next flight, as well as inconvenience for passengers.

Holding for a rather long time might well be better value.

Press reports suggested that JFK was liable to have delays, because of Industrial Action by the ATC, who might be replaced by the Military. The situation was uncertain, NOTAMs were unclear prior too departure. I left Europe with fuller tanks.

I was given a "1 hour 20 minutes to Hold at Nantucket". PanAM requested a "60 mile Hold" there. So I did too. The weather was fine. I could have gone to Boston or Halifax, if I had wanted. My Passengers had tickets for JFK anyway.

We landed at JFK with 95% of our "Island Holding Requirement" ( for Gan or Bermuda) and, I hope, satisfied passengers.

A Captain may have to act as a Flight Economist, sometimes.

[BOAC]

Holding for a rather long time might well be better value. - that quote was in relation to post#18, and I think if YOU were to always 'hold for a long time rather than divert' on a regular basis on short-haul European flights you might encounter the occasional passing manager. We are talking routine flying, not one-off 'unique' trips.

[Linktrained]

BOAC
Thank you for your prompt response. Many of the costs of a diversion would remain similar, I think, whether on a one-off or a European short-haul operation, although the distances themselves may be shorter.

( With my previous employer I flew up to a dozen 20 minute international flights per day. My employer before that, had me flying six flights daily on "The Little Lift", taking freight from Berlin through the 10 STATUTE Mile wide corridor to the West.) So I did have some experience of short haul, too !

[737Jock]

Interesting article in the latest Balpa Log, certainly makes you think:
(not sure if I'm allowed to quote the entire article, if not I'll levae it to the moderators)

BALPA The Log- Spring 2013- sideways look

The fuel fudge factor.
Over 20 years ago in a very Big Airline it was decided to improve the on-time departure statistics and encourage people to take it more seriously. A very clever man asked a very precise question. How much does it cost to delay the Narita flight by one hour? The answer was £60,000 as it involved missing the night jet ban, delaying till the morning, re-crewing and putting all the passengers at Heathrow and Narita in a hotel. He then divided the £60,000 by 60 to get the cost per minute and somewhere in the subsequent ‘spin’ the word Narita was dropped and it was decided that one minute’s delay to a jumbo was costing £1,000. Sometime later even the reference to a 747 was dropped. I’m sure you can see the error.
Sometime before that someone else had calculated that putting an extra
20 tonnes of fuel on a transatlantic aeroplane meant that it could not make as high a level for the Atlantic crossing and under these circumstances it could burn ‘...up to 4 per cent of the extra fuel per hour of cruise’. By quoting this often enough and forgetting some of the conditions it is now applied to an extra 300 kilos of fuel on an A319 going to Amsterdam at FL230.
This, of course, makes no sense at all: if you cast your mind back to your
principles of flight studies you will remember that at low indicated airspeed (high altitude, near the performance limit) induced drag is dominant; at low to medium levels (high IAS) form drag is dominant. Form drag does not change with weight. In any case on short-haul flights a far greater percentage of the flight is spent at inefficient speeds (even 250 knots IAS is considerably above the most efficient speed for most short-haul aeroplanes).

Increased burn
The extra fuel that the navlog requires if there is an increase in weight is often quoted as proof of the increased burn. You should remember that this increase is just a fudge factor to get the aeroplane away without a recalculation. If you ask for the recalculation you will see the real (very small) increase, if there is any increase at all.
You may ask why any pilot, even a manager, would want to prove that extra fuel costs a lot to carry. The answer is, of course, that every few years, pressure is put on managers to ‘reduce costs’. The board believes it is in charge and therefore it doesn’t have to bear the pain itself. The senior managers reduce a few of their numbers and also the number of secretaries (the managers who leave become consultants with, if anything, more pay, the secretaries are replaced at the next management reshuffle or change of office building).
The marketing section gets rid of two colour photocopiers and a cold drinks machine (again, later replaced) and the IT section says it has made many cost savings, but no-one else understands IT enough to realise it hasn’t actually done anything.
Engineering suffers most with a reduction of spares on the shelf, reduced numbers of licensed engineers and stopping what little training it was doing. The rapid increase in sick aeroplanes needing spares or engineers when the upturn comes is corrected by reversing the above, admittedly after the problem has led to a large number of cancelled flights. By this time the engineering manager who was in charge of the cuts (and is an engineer first and doesn’t really understand the management game) has either retired or been sacked. Operations spends a lot of money on a new flight planning system that attempts to prove that the same aeroplanes flying the same routes will burn less fuel, and also on a rostering system that either fails completely or makes the pilots so tired that they leave in droves at the next upturn in business when other companies are recruiting.

Apparent improvement
This leaves pilot management with a problem. Since the Wright brothers aeroplanes have been operated as efficiently as possible, if only because they don’t really work at all unless you do so. Almost everything that could be done has been done decades ago and unlike most other sections, the pilots cannot have a reshuffle or a new building to cover up the backsliding between recessions that happens everywhere else. As Robert Ayling discovered, you can’t reduce numbers to use only 1.98 pilots per aeroplane, there has to be two.
All they can do is try to find some things that might produce an apparent improvement in costs. The first one is to look at the excess fuel saving
and conveniently forget about some (most) of the conditions that originally applied (if indeed they ever knew them). If you can establish to your own satisfaction (and senior management and the board) that there is a saving
in fuel per extra kilo carried (whether there is really a saving or not), then the computer can calculate the huge (but mythical) savings across the fleet. ‘Many a mickle makes a muckle.’
Every 100 kilos less extra fuel that is loaded is now, on paper, a saving of four kilos per hour (note how ‘per hour of cruise’ has disappeared) for flight operations, or more correctly for flight operations management. It is also three minutes less holding fuel, but in flying, as we know, nothing unexpected ever happens.
Similar disingenuous statements are made about most of the other fuel- saving measures which either don’t work, or create some increased risk
of distraction. To mention them all here would sound like a rant, but at least one aircraft recently has found itself crossing a runway in a ‘no engine’ taxi situation whilst trying to start a second engine. An interesting bit of number crunching is that in the airline concerned the amount of money saved by single-engine taxi per year is almost the same as the CEO’s reported issue of free shares.
And the clever man in the first paragraph? He also fudged the way delays were recorded and took the credit for saving £1,000 for every one of the many minutes less delays that were recorded. I don’t know what his bonus was, but...


There is a lovely cartoon next to the article, detailing a fuel league table pinned on a white board saying "think fuel!" in big red letters.
The pilot standing next to it while looking says: "Ah yes... the think fuel that is the extra half a ton we need to give me time to think!"

[Teldorserious]

Airline pilots are hired based on their ability to socialy conform and take orders. This belies a certain maleable morality based on group think adhearance to company policy. This week, CRM is good, they all fight for it, next week it's bad, and they are frothing at the mouth about how it's horrible.

Asking airline pilots who have never historically accomplished ten minutes of performance and flight planning in their lives, as they are given their 'package' prior to a flight, is not only ill concieved but risky, as stretching fuel is an advanced performance strategy, where risk is weighed, options considered..skill sets that were not hired from the get go, as 'captains' aren't hired intially but followers, who will take orders and 'comply'.

So the airlines culling for non-thinkers, then asking them to start thinking, adding in financial incentive to the very people that lack the morality and discipline to not sell, being the sort that have done that most of their career, not speaking up to drunk captains, maintainance issues, is so problematic it's almost beyond discussion.

[Natstrackalpha]

I think it is better to let the Captain decide how much fuel he wants to upload.

[grounded27]

Don't drink the KoolAid..

[Natstrackalpha]

We landed at JFK with 95% of our "Island Holding Requirement

Linktrainer

95% of island holding = would that be 3.8 hours by any chance?

[Linktrained]

Natstrackalpha

On our Britannias the Island Holding requirement was 4052 kgs which was sufficient for two hours holding. After landing and taxing to our unloading stand we had 3900 kgs. Out of interest, I got my Flight Engineer to give me the figure, so if some one wished to know after 45 years.... !

To reduce the amount of conversation/chatter which could interrupt, when the replacement ATC might be saying something, my F/E was used as my Auto Throttle. Instead of me verbally requesting an increase or decrease of power, I would indicate to him that

1. We should maintain a certain speed (180 kts ?) with the A/P in height lock.

2. Or descend at (500 ft/min ? ) with the A/P in speed lock.

I pointed at the appropriate instrument, ASI or R/C, which he could see.

It worked quite well.

Perhaps something like this is called CRM, now !

On some longer flights to the UK, where Met. forecasts might not have been available or useful, because my flight was too long (15 or 16 hours since my Met Briefing), I used to put Island Holding as my Alternate on my ATC Flight Plan.

Thank you for asking.
LT

[Natstrackalpha]

Thanks, we did island holding in class once for the ATPL.
I thought it was four hours then but flying an example a/c like the 74 or something.
You are right about the Met of course, nowadays with digital this and that you can get an accurate TAF, as they are using all the kit and even the TAFs and winds aloft are fairly accurate, most times. you can flick a screen and get the jetstreams anywhere in the world and work out your own Wx. Therefore they try to pinch on the fuel - due to the predictability of the wx. Although considered a bit like "theft" we try to upload as much as we can get away with in reason. Hence all the recent posts on the fuel issue thing. Talk about closing the gate after the cow has gone, they should have stuck to steam trains.

Here is a link, where I get all my jetstream info from - it is comforting to know one`s source. Here you go: if it does not work you have to drag it or simply write it in - I am glad I am flying something old fashioned like an Airbus. Oh, its all right, its turned blue - it must be in Managed mode!

When it comes up, just click on the part of the world where you want to fly and you can work out your groundspeed and see how much it will/not bounce you around.


AWC - High Level SIGWX Charts (http://www.aviationweather.gov/products/swh/)

Nice talking to you and it is an honour.

[Natstrackalpha]

And please enlighten us on how often have you actually had to use this extra fuel..

How about being stacked up on a Lamburne 3Alpha arrival for near on 30` after crawling from Europe in a gale, lower than usual due to the freezing cold temps at higher altitudes and everything is piled up as everything is slow due to the headwinds (not to mention the missed approaches)

[FoxForce44]

It's not all about paying a decent sallary for experient pilots. For example : the company wich this topic was opened is in south america. The sallary is not the worst at all, but if you're not happy with the airline policies, working conditions and the worst of all in this country : the schedule, you're not gonna be so efficient as you could if you were happy.

[BOAC]

NTA
"And please enlighten us on how often have you actually had to use this extra fuel"

- very rarely, I suspect. In your example, we have things called diversion airfields (quite a few around LHR), the option to 'commit' to LHR weather permitting, and the option to actually lift more fuel at departure when - judging by your 'trip' ending in a "Lamburne 3Alpha" - it certainly looked an intelligent sensible thing to do, plus of course the last resort ability to declare a fuel emergency when all the best laid plans etc etc. and I assume that sort of trip was not an every day occurrence? (I think I forgot a tech stop.......). Your 'sample' trip certainly appeared to have an amazing number of unforecast events - or did the crew just not notice the forecasts?

What de facto is asking is why carry all that extra fuel every trip and not use intellect and load it when you need it?

Captains, of course, can rightly load whatever they wish at any time. If they consistently 'over-do' it for no reason, someone will (rightly) notice. That's all.

[Natstrackalpha]

BOAC Thank you so much. We do get the forecast. always and everytime.
Life would be interesting if that were not to happen, for many reasons.
We also fuel to boot. I am with Slasher on his fuel attitude - on this one, despite the fact I don`t like him at all this week.

[Capn Bloggs]

The extra fuel that the navlog requires if there is an increase in weight is often quoted as proof of the increased burn. You should remember that this increase is just a fudge factor to get the aeroplane away without a recalculation. If you ask for the recalculation you will see the real (very small) increase, if there is any increase at all.

Not in my short haul aeroplane it's not. The computer FP says the burn increase per 1000kg is 48kg (oddly enough, around 3.5% per hour). Decrease the ZFW by 1000kg and guess what, the recomputed burn is...exactly 48kg less. I'm not an "air tank" man, but let's keep the argument on the straight and narrow when criticising the enviro-warriors.

Every 100 kilos less extra fuel that is loaded is now, on paper, a saving of four kilos per hour (note how ‘per hour of cruise’ has disappeared)
As for this, so if you're not "cruising" then no extra fuel would be burnt? Come on.

[Piltdown Man]

You don't have to believe everything you read in the "The Log." I'm perfectly happy believing (Newtonian physics?) that takes more fuel to climb a heavier aircraft (Work = etc...) and also content with the notion that the fuel burn of a heavy aircraft (Lift/Drag/Thrust relationship) will be greater than a light one - by about 3-4%. Just like states in the aircraft's climb and cruise tables (Narita and 747 references were obviously removed).

As ever, this thread shows that they are the "Fill it up" mob, "an extra ton for the wife and kids" mob and the rest of us (maybe a minority) who will regularly depart on minimum (or maybe even less) than flight plan fuel.

Head well above parapet, waiting for incoming...

PM

PS. Before someone busts a blood vessel, let me explain "less than minimum." You arrive at destination having carried round trip fuel and you are 75kgs "short" of a 3,797 kg requirement. Do you call the fuel truck out? Or do you look at weather, think about the route, look at the mean time of similar flights, consider taxi fuel, etc.? ie. Do you think? Some do and some don't.

[BOAC]

Not forgetting, PM, that the fuel truck will probably levy a minimum delivery charge so you could finish up costing the boss a lot of dosh.

[EnergyIsSafety]

Some guys are always late, are always landing with 2 times the fuel needed, are always spending 500 kg more during approach, are always descending with speedbrakes to add power later, are always established 15 miles final level flight with flaps and thrust ... (I stop here)

Without reducing the fuel on board, good technique of low drag low noise, asking for shortcut and having enough skills to perform visual, using reduced take-off thrust save already a lot of money.

Gameboy pilots are maybe not suitable for this job anymore.

If you return to the basics, flying with energy in mind, it's the best way to save fuel, time and money without doing any favor regarding the safety.

Personnally I save more than my salary every month in fuel only without compromising the safety anywhere.

What do you think ?

[Teldorserious]

Energy -

I think it's the difference between a captain internally motivated to find limitations, find efficiencies, mitigate risk, understand what he his doing vs the sort that 'just shows up' to collect a paycheck, happy to be doing what they are told, not making any decisions, happy to not have any responsibility.

[Piltdown Man]

...that the fuel truck will probably levy a minimum delivery charge...

Too right! Many German airports have the minimum delivery of 1,000 litres or a surcharge, other airfields charge a "pitch-up" fee and some a "hook-up" fee.

The trouble is, if you need fuel - you need it!

But to date, the easiest way I've found to save fuel is to board early so you can depart early. Then you can tip-toe all the way to your destination.

PM

[SloppyJoe]

using reduced take-off thrust

I think you will find this uses more fuel.

[the_stranger]

I think you will find this uses more fuel.
Correct, but it does save money.

In "my" company, they keep tabs on previous flights (up to a year or so previous) and plan the flight with minimum fuel based on the amount used on those previous flights with a 1 or 10% change of having to divert. (1 or 10% depend on certain things like runway availability etc)
This takes into account a lot of things, like peak times, seasonal variance, available routings. They calculated that if those 1 or 10% actually divert, it is still cheaper then carrying extra fuel on all flights to try and avoid those diversions.
Of course it doesn't take into account the actual weather on that day and captains (crews) are told to think for themselves and extra fuel is never ever (not even in the extreme a ton extra for mom cases) questioned.

A page back somebody asked would somebody fly to FRA on a minimum flightplan fuel? Yes I would on a good weather day. Delays due to peak traffic is already taken into the fuelfigure and if I ran into a unforseen problem, I simply divert..
(Have not been forced to divert for 10 years now flying in Europe due too this policy actually working plus sensible thinking)

[Teldorserious]

Ask me to fly around on fumes, I will ask you what you are doing to save money in the company.

Sure, we all have to do what we are told, but It wouldn't bother me to land at some off field, gas up on retail fuel and tell the powers that be that the winds changed, destination wx.


Now we are really saving money.

[FullWings]

Recently had a chat with my chief pilot and one of the things that came up was fuel and the carriage thereof. Slightly surprisingly, he asked me not to worry if I felt more was necessary and that he would be happier if I put it on than not.

The issue was more with those who just routinely added fuel without taking anything else into account. We are paid to manage the operation in a safe and efficient way - it is quite possible much of the time to do both on normal flightplan fuel, if you are prepared to expend a little mental energy. To add "for mum" or "just because" smacks of laziness and, dare I say it, unprofessionalism.

[Teldorserious]

I wouldn't allow pilots hired for their checklist reading skills to push fuel into the reserves.

[Linktrained]

In 1951 I was employed as a pilot to do Army-Co-operation flying from Liverpool, flying Austers, Miles Whitney Straight, Gemini or Rapide aircraft as required. The tasks involved flying around one of a designated triangular routes each taking 15 or 20 minutes - and to do this for an hour or two. We were supposed to fly at 200 mph ( a little difficult with almost any UK civil aircraft of this era !)

I also flew an early DC3 with its Starboard passenger door, on freight flights across the Irish Sea with papers, plumbs or meat. ( No type rating required in freight flights, but I could learn how to work the U/C.)

Some Austers were placarded with "Maximum Speed 200 mph" and a "Stall Speed of 28 mph" just above my head. I suspect that when the Company had quoted for the job, no pilot had been asked. ( Had I been asked why I took so long to get around the triangle, I hope that I would have explained about headwinds, on each leg !)

I was to fly the Rapide at dusk, near Blackpool. After a bit I noticed that the Port exhaust was glowing rather red. With very limited experience of Rapide night flying, I was uncertain. I could not see the Starboard exhaust to see if it was the same colour...

I throttled back the Port engine until the exhaust was dark enough, although still giving some power.

This was all in the Blackpool airfield area, so if necessary I COULD have diverted. On completion of my hours, I returned to land at Liverpool. I was asked " Why did you only refuel the Port engine ?"

A few days later I had to " sign - out" the 1179 form for the Chief Pilot, my Employer and the Owner of the Rapide ( just one person !).

I do not remember whether my "Briefing" mentioned MY fuel consumption.
I had a total of some 400 hours flying all told, including having had to C of A one Auster.

Few of the remaining Rapides probably fly at night, any more.

My Rapide Type Rating has lapsed, too.

The Artillery called this " DRY SHOOTING". We were never shot down. Our speed ( or lack of it ) may have helped.
LT