Taking less than flight planned fuel

[Pandora]

How many of you out there would take less than flight planned fuel (ie fuel as calculated by the computer that churns out your flight plan/SWORD)? would anyone be inclined to round figures down instead of up? Now take into account the fact that half of Europe is on an ATC strike. I flew a 3.5 hr sector across Europe during the height of the strike and on the return sector the captain announced that he was going to take below SWORD fuel. It was only by a few hundred kilos but I stated that I was not happy with this. The last time I flew with this captain the weather was terrible and I anticipated delays followed by a difficult appraoch with possible windshear. On this occasion he had overridden my request for extra fuel and taken SWORD fuel even though I had protested quite strongly about it. We landed with just above minimum reserve fuel (ie 3 mins to a mayday call). So yesterday I thought I would express my discomfort more strongly, and I did protest. He said 'don't worry - we won't crash' and totally ignored my protests about taking below SWORD fuel. I would like to have a plan as to how to deal with this kind of behaviour next time I have to fly with this captain, so if anyone has any helpful comments, both about the CRM involved, and about the fuel quantity taken, please contribute them.

[Hand Solo]

Hmmm, bit of a tricky one. FCO 1703 may be a good starting point as it only permits you to take more than Sword, not less. There's certainly potential to take less safely at times, as sword does work on most used runway and longest likely arrival, so favourable winds/higher levels may reduce burn a bit. That said, its not really on to completely ignore the wishes of the other crew member. Perhaps in future you might express your concern about the first incident, remind him of his responsibilites under FCO 1703, state for the record that you object to him reducing fuel below Sword without good reason and point out that should you find yourself 3mins from reserve again you'll be making a beeline for your fleet managers office to explain your concerns.

[BlueEagle]

Hands Solo has just about covered it Pandora, don't envy you though.

Always difficult dealing with such individuals, they are determined to be noticed as the one with the lowest numbers when it comes to fuel uplift, believing themselves to be the most economic. It is a fallacy of course, they are the ones most likely to have to divert and then, in the charter world anyway, you could have wiped out the profit from the next six flights.

From a CRM point of view he doesn't seem to have bothered himself with it, he should have discussed it and justified his position to you but going below SWORD is foolhardy to say the least.

If it happens again remind him of these two previous events and follow Hands Solos's advice above.

There is also CHIRP. Best of luck.

[screwdriver]

Good advice from Mr Solo. The captain (and yourself ) both operated in contravention of the appropriate FCO. I might be inclined to visit your Chief pilot sooner rather than later. It is rather worrying that not only did the captain choose to ignore (or misinterpret?) FCOs but also your concerns. I wonder what concerns he will choose to ignore the next time out.

[Stan Woolley]

Hand Solo

The guy probably is the fleet manager! ;)

Pandora

Given the conditions I just cannot understand this attitude, to me its often caused by some type of psycho or personal problems.

Minimum fuel - just in the last month seen umpteen reasons why I don't think its sensible, to go below plog minimum is taking the p*ss.

You may or may not get support from above but at the end of the day if you are concerned you should talk to someone, but tell the guy concerned first,it sounds unlikely but he may have reflected on your concerns. He may be able to justify his fuel decisions to himself and possibly others BUT at the end of the day he has so far failed to justify them to you.

Bad airmanship. bad CRM , bad news.

[411A]

Generally not a very good idea.....EXCEPT,

If the flight is long range, and can be re-dispatched enroute, and the diversion (orginal, destination,alternate wx is within limits) AND most important, the dispatcher agrees, AND produces a flight plan accordingly, THEN, it can be done, for usually the reason to uplift more payload or mitigate high fuel cost.

By long range, six+ hours, generally.

[BOAC]

Feeling 'Chirpy' Pandora?

[Gin Slinger]

She's 'Ppruned it' - isn't that the same thing??

[BlueEagle]

Pandora, 411A has already outlined a possible way to reduce fuel requirement en-route, when you say you were 3 mins away from a MayDay does that take into account any possible provision in your Ops. manual for reducing reserve fuel prior to arrival at your destination?

The sort of thing I am thinking of is:

"When not more than one hour from destination the wx at destination is CAVOK, two runways available, ATC have advised no delays expected, wx expected to remain CAVOK for at least an hour after ETA etc. etc."

Then it may be possible to use your diversion fuel as en route burn BUT the Capt. must discuss all this with you first, maybe he was trying to be clever and keep it up his sleeve? Very bad CRM but there will always be a few out there! If you do one day decide to talk to management be absolutely certain you have covered all the possibilites.

[S76Heavy]

Pandora, would it be possible for you to approach an instructor and tell him/her that you've become unsure of the company standard as you've flown with people (do NOT mention any names at this point) that order fuel in a way you consider contrary to company rules, and would the instructor please clarify the company rules again to you?
That way, you've demonstrated to the training dept. that there is at least one person operating in a non-standard manner, you are very keen to do the right thing but because of your position as FO are currently unable to enforce it. The training dept. can and should.

IMO it's a pretty serious offence to take less fuel than calculated, unless there are very good ways of making sure that you can make it up; in offshore heli ops it's often the choice between payload, performance (or lack of) and route fuel, but we can easily make an extra fuel stop if and when required.
But as soon as the fuel runs out offshore, as it does occasionally, you'll see very, very conservative fuel planning..

[BOAC]

<When not more than one hour from destination the wx at destination is CAVOK, two runways available, ATC have advised no delays expected, wx expected to remain CAVOK for at least an hour after ETA etc. etc>

<3 mins away from a MayDay does that take into account any possible provision in your Ops. manual for reducing reserve fuel prior to arrival at your destination?>

BE, I do not know the detail, but I SUSPECT 'yes' to the second, and that this had already happened; in Pandora's case, '3 mins away' was probably 3 minutes from the 30 mins reserve, (which JAROPS alleviation you mention).

Pandora will, no doubt, clarify, but the question asked was about the ethos of departing with less than flight plan fuel - not really what happened thereafter, but what could have been REASONABLY expected to happen.

To be strictly accurate, of course, I do not believe that 'reserve' fuel can ever be reduced - unless the a/c weight changes dramatically.

[Pandora]

Many thanks for all of the replies, Hand Solo - the FCO ref was particularly useful.

In order to clarify matters, the first occassion I mentioned (3 mins...) we had used both our contingency and our diversion fuel whilst holding and had indeed reached our final 30 mins of fuel. We had 600kgs in one tank and 700kgs in the other on my after landing fuel calcuation, when our SWORD said 1200kgs was the absolute minimum. If we had had to go around I dread to think what would have happened - we made, as did everyone else that night, a SRA onto 23 at LHR, a siuation that was not entirely unexpected. Not the best approach to be trying to ignore the FMC that is desperately screaming 'using rsv fuel' at you. Please note on this occassion the capt did take SWORD fuel - no more though, and it was his dimissal of my levels of discomfort to not taking extra that I had a problem with.

On the flight this week, I was unsure as to how the ATC strike would affect us. SWORD allows for the longest routing from a departure runway to the longest arrival. However our company info informed us that several of the ATC areas we would be flying through would be on a minimum service, with no short cuts allowed. So with the potential for direct routings out of the window but everything else in the main OK, although I could not see a reason for extra fuel I certainly was not happy to take less.
In the end we requested a higher cruise level and slightly slower (more efficient) speed to arrive at destination with 30 mins + diversion. My comfort zone during the flight was not compromised, but the capts regard for my opinion left something to be desired.

I have learnt something from this situation. I could have written a CHIRP, but will not this time. I will be forewarned and forearmed next time I fly with this capt, and if producing the FCO and a general discussion about our previous flights doesn't work, I will be keeping the paperwork from the flight to discuss with someone a bit higher up than me.

Once again, thanks for your input.

[Dale Harris]

used to happen a bit Syd Per on diesel 9 and early 727's I was told. Leave with slightly less than required fuel, although not much less, and through replanning and recalculation of variable reserves at about or just past Ad, decision was made to continue or land at Ad for fuel. Slightly different circumstances i know but principle is same I think.

[Devils Advocate]

Uhm, a ton of JetA1 costs, what, $200 - let's also assume that an average EU shorthaul flight is, say, 2 hours, and that the extra burn for tankering fuel is 5% per ton of extra fuel per hour......... so in this instance the cost of carrying an extra ton of fuel is $20.

But heck, let's assume that I've got it way out and double the tankering addition to $40.

Q). Anybody care to tell me what a diversion costs ?

A). It's $0000's !

I.e. There'll be extra landing fees, handling fees, navigation charges, fuel uplift, crew hours, etc.....

E.g. If a diversion had direct costs of, say, $1600, then ( using a tankering cost of $40 ) - you'd have to operate 40 (or probably more) diversion-free sectors ( using no more than PLOG fuel on any of them - i.e. no tankering allowed ) to recoup what the diversion cost you - to say nothing of the intangible costs of all the peeved pax, the aircraft maybe being late for it's next rotation, etc.

Now whilst it's all very well saying that 'pennies make pounds and that pounds make millionaires', and whilst I'm not advocating "fill the wings and put the trip fuel in the centre" ;), but it rather sounds like this particular skipper needs a revisit of 'how to make sensible fuel decissions' and 'CRM'.

[Land ASAP]

It was my understanding Pandora, that if there is any likelyhood of using Reserve fuel, one must at the very least make a PAN call. That would have provided the necessary paperwork (ASR cc:BALPA) for someone impartial to judge the individuals actions.

I have been in your situation MANY times as an FO on a S/H fleet at LHR. I tend to be a bit wary when TSRA is written on any TAF due to the circumstances that led to Britannia crashing at Gerona a few years back, but this waryness has fallen on deaf ears a few times in my career. So many times that I never take the "I think we'll use SWORD/Flight Plan fuel" response to heart. I would gladly enjoy the challenge of diverting to MXP when LIN is 800m in +RA and having to make a MAYDAY call because MXP ask us to join the hold. That would in my opinion make the individual who ignored my plea for 'an extra half hour' take it in future.

Why do these OLD + BOLD min fuel characters exist?

It is my belief that they use their experience of operating in airspace that 10 years ago had half the aircraft operating in it and apply that to their own 'personal' risk analysis. Your more sceptical analysis does not stand up to his 'experience', despite the fact that it indeed may be more accurate.

[canberra]

i was always taught that you dont want fuel in the bowser and you dont take off with the runway behind you, or something like that!

[BlueEagle]

Well, LandASAP, when I was a young F/O on the B737-200 it wasn't the old captains one had to worry about, they were always the more cautious, it was the young and recently promoted ones trying to make a name for themselves whilst stamping their authority on the flight that caused me my early grey hairs!:)

[snooky]

I think it's time now for fuel "league tables" to be banned by the authorities before something really nasty happens as these individuals strive to be at the top.
Take away their incentive to take less than a sensible amount of fuel and maybe they'll take a sensible amount.
Incidentally, some years ago the CAA issued a circular advising all aircraft inbound to LHR and LGW to take at least 20mins. extra on all occasions because of the unpredictable nature of delays. I wonder how often that is followed?

[capt waffoo]

Its all very well claiming that due to CAVOK it is save to go with minimum PLOG fuel. This strikes me as inadvisable in the extreme.

Taking less seems criminally irresponsible. Firstly, by taking less you must be able to prove, at the subsequent court of enquiry, what information you were privy to that led to your judgement being better than the supplier of your PLOG. I challenge anyone to convince a court of that.

Secondly, all that stuff about within x minutes and miles and a landing assured etc etc. Again I challenge anyone to defend themselves aganst the C of E's enquiry, "Captain, just how did you judge, whilst over Belgium, that a heard of deer was not going to charge across the runway in front of you at destination?" I do not believe that the phrase "if landing is assured" has a meaning that I'd bet an empty beer can on if it ccame to a legal argument.

Clearly you can't defend such a fuel policy. So perhaps best not try your luck, and ensure you never plan to arrive anywhere without a healthy buffer between planned arrival fuel and a "MAYDAY" call that will invalidate your pension.

[BlueEagle]

Yes, I agree 100% with Capt Wafoo, I only mentioned the fact earlier that some Ops. manuals carry a section to allow for continuing a flight if all looks good, TWO runways etc. etc. This can never be taken into account at the planning stage, just wanted to be certain that Pandora was aware of what some smart arse might suddenly pull out of the bag as justification for their stupidity!:)

[Pegasus77]

Was surprised once when approaching EDDM, with those high quality weather-experts, to find a lot of CBs hanging over the place instead of the predicted CAVOK; first we had to hold for some time, then during the approach a new CB came up a bit too quickly, and we initiated a GA due to a speed-increase of 40 knots in 2 seconds. Glad we had some precautionary extra fuel on board, because due to the CBs we couldn't land instantly after the GA!

I personally think it is insane to go away with less than minimum, there is no reason to do so; even better: there are 100s of reasons to take a little bit extra on board, even when the weather is good!

I had a fight with a captain once because he wanted to leave with minimum fuel, and I had several arguments to take some more on board (weather, traffic situation, non-ideal alternate etc.). He had no reply to my arguments, only that he personally felt fine with minimum only. After 5 minutes of trying I got up and said that if he wanted to fly unsafely, I wouldn't join the party. Before I could leave the cockpit, the captain had already agreed to take some more fuel with us. And yes, when we got a straight in at destination and landed with 1000kgs more on board than necessary, the captain said "see I was right" about a 1000 times, but in the event of a GA or diversion, I would be the one who could say exactly the same.

Also: If you feel unsafe: LEAVE!! Try to convince your skipper with arguments, and if he doesn't listen, and has no valid arguments for himself, then GET OUT. There is no chief pilot who will punish you, if you don't want to leave with less (!) than the minimum calculated (and legal!) fuel.

P77

[FWA NATCA]

Pandora,

Sounds like you need to have a long discussion with your company chief pilot, talk about STUPID, INSANE, let alone endangering the passengers. Or talk with what ever governmental agency overlooks airline safety, this pilot has to be stopped before he makes the evening news.

Another suggestion, go to the NASA ASR web site and print out some stories about pilots running out of fuel (there are several about air carriers running out of fuel). Then the next time your favorite captain decides to go with less than planned fuel, hand him a few copies of the ASR Reports, and say I don't want to make the evening news like these guys did.

Finally, if that doesn't work don't get into the cockpit with him, I sure as hell wouldn't.


Mike

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Wasn't there a discussion of this on CHIRP or somewhere recently?. I seem to recall the outcome was that (in the uk) it was in fact in breach of the conditions set out in a companies AOC and therefore illegal.
The AOC is granted on the basis that a proven and reliable system of fuel planning is in place for each flight.That may be a complex manual PLOG or more comonly a CFP (sword etc).You can't just ignore the data suplied as that data has been judged to be integral to the legal operation of every flight. In flight replanning / decision point procedures etc are a different thing and must be described in your companies approved manuals (also a requirement of the AOC)

[Dick Deadeye]

Hi Pandora,

Others have covered most of the relevant points, may I just raise a couple?

Please don't think I'm having a go at you, because I'm not, but I do think you need to be able to answer them, because they are likely to be some of the first ones asked by the CAA / BA in the event of a formal investigation into a fuel incident.

1) If you thought that the fuel flight plan was illegal (as opposed to just being less than you would have liked to have taken) then why did you go?

I know it's a lot easier said than done, but if you can't see how the final fuel figure was arrived at, and are not sure that it is legally sufficient, don't go.

It's your licence on the line as well, if something goes wrong.

2) What happened about the PAN call hat FCOs required you to make? Only 3 minutes from reserve fuel would appear to make it likely that you may land with less than reserve fuel remaining.

I ask because, if you report someone formally, you must be sure that you have discharged all your licence responsibilities correctly, otherwise you may get dragged into the manure as well.

I'm no suggesting you didn't, just asking!

[professor yaffle]

just a small thought guys

if atc say no delay, this could still mean a hold of up to 20 mins, certainly within the uk ( not sure about non uk )

most times when this short term holding occurs atc will say how long they anticpate you to hold, but not always

cheers

prof

[Pandora]

Deadey Dick,

I agree that your questions are relevant and I fully understand that I would be responsible if an incident occurred. However I do seem to have a problem with this one captain and it was to prevent it happening again that I asked my questions here.

To answer your first question; of the two instances I mentioned, one took the correct flight planned fuel but nothing more, though I would have liked more. The second took a bit below flight planned fuel and when I expressed discomfort my relatively small amount of experience was held up for comparison by the captain to his decades of flying without killing himself. I know that these are not excuses but in the circumstances the patronising tone set by the captain and various other incidents on 2 earlier sectors (which do not have an effect on the fuel decision but had started to lead to a breakdown in communication and undermining of my confidence) meant that it was becoming increasingly difficult for me to assert myself to him. Now anyone out there who knows me will know that I am very outspoken and don't usuallly have a problem stating my opinion. I have asked here how to deal with this situation in the future, as my own experience is limited compared to some people here, and have been given some very good replies. In the future my FCO's will be out of the library in a flash, or I will refuse to stay on the aircraft. This will be followed up by a Flight Crew Report once the captain has put the extra fuel on because I can't see even him being daft enough to delay a flight for 300 kg.

Your second question. We had 3 minutes to reserve fuel once on stand. I would definitely have made a Pan call had we gone around or had we been asked to go again round the hold. I didn't make the call in the hold because we did have the amount that in good weather would have been enough. As it was we carried out the world's longest SRA. Again the attitude of the captain was one of not wanting to discuss the obvious, though I did try initiating the debate, and I resorted to making the list of planned actions in my own head. Who knows if he was doing the same. As is being currently and actively discussed on another thread in this forum, it is very difficult for an FO to take controlling action from a captain (especially one who has been flying for the company since befroe I was born, and likes to remind me of the fact).

Again these are not meant to be excuses, but just an insight that I have analysed my actions, found them wanting in some way and am trying to fix the holes in my knowledge. My bag of luck is a little bit emptier, and I want to make sure my bag of experience has been topped up by the same amount.

[FWA NATCA]

Pandora,

Taking less than required fuel is UNSAFE , some pilots may cheat death for years but eventually they will end up becoming a statistic. Our hope is that when they do they don't take anyone else with them.

Mike
FWA

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Ah ! The old "Never been involved in a fatal accident in all my years..."line. What a load of utter mince!!
There is not a single pilot flying anywhere in the world no matter how good or bad who has been involved in a fatal accident.

[Captain Stable]

Actually, there are lots of pilots around who have been involved in fatal accidents. Just that they didn't happen to be among the fatalities...

[Dick Deadeye]

Pandora,

Thanks for the replies.

...these are not meant to be excuses, but just an insight that I have analysed my actions, found them wanting in some way and am trying to fix the holes in my knowledge. My bag of luck is a little bit emptier, and I want to make sure my bag of experience has been topped up by the same amount...

A very professional approach, one that will stand you in good stead during your aviation career.

Like all of us after something has happened in the air that we didn't like, you're now a little older, a little wiser, and better prepared for a similar incident should it happen again.

We've all been there! Best wishes for the future.

Dick