PDA

View Full Version : Your best fuel/cost savings tips


mistadarling
11th Sep 2018, 12:31
Hey fellow pilots!
What are your best tips for saving fuel/costs at your companies? It'd probably be a good idea to exchange ideas, not only to reduce costs but also our impact on mother earth.

pineteam
11th Sep 2018, 12:58
I beleive the guys working for the low cost would be an expert at it, otherwise In the Airbus FCOM , there is a “green procedure” Chapter which give you all the tips and tricks how to be fuel efficient. In a nutshell: Single engine taxi In & Out with minimum braking, Climb at CI zero (EasyJet Procedure), Optimum cruise alt, Idle power as long as possible during descent, Delay the configuration as much as possible and lowest flaps setting for the approach.

763 jock
11th Sep 2018, 13:20
Don't run the APU either. You can then either freeze or sweat your bollocks off while the management come up with more great initiatives from their air conditioned offices....

sonicbum
11th Sep 2018, 16:16
Hey fellow pilots!
What are your best tips for saving fuel/costs at your companies? It'd probably be a good idea to exchange ideas, not only to reduce costs but also our impact on mother earth.

The usual ones to name a few :

- minimise APU usage whenever feasible (opt for ground power / ext. Air cond)
- minimise taxi time (intersection takeoff)
- use the most favourable runway according to your departure direction (this one deserves a little more discussion as there are quite a few threats associated to it)
- use company provided CI
- directs
- optimum levels
- short approaches
- low drag/low noise approaches
- idle reverse
- one engine taxi
etc..

Vessbot
11th Sep 2018, 18:39
One engine cruise

de facto
11th Sep 2018, 18:54
Call in sick:}

B2N2
11th Sep 2018, 19:00
not only to reduce costs but also our impact on mother earth.

Realy?!
if you burn 30,000lbs of fossile fuel during your trip you really think 300lbs matters?
Its just a feel good maneuver. Virtue signaling.

Concours77
11th Sep 2018, 19:51
Load aft.

fly the one with winglets.

Denti
11th Sep 2018, 21:20
Don't crash. Saves a ****load of hardware.

BluSdUp
11th Sep 2018, 22:55
Third runway in Heathrow!

Rated De
12th Sep 2018, 02:41
When the savings of fuel cost go into the pockets of the operating pilots, then sure exchange ideas.

Don't run the APU either. You can then either freeze or sweat your bollocks off while the management come up with more great initiatives from their air conditioned offices....

Those air conditioned offices have the power on all hours of the day and night. Coward Street in Sydney, Waterside and Cathay Pacific city hum along all day and night. When the administrative staff and executives turn the air conditioning off to save carbon then they can be taken as serious. Until then they continue to stuff pilot savings in their fat pockets.

Pilots carry what they need, do what they consider is safe and that is why the PIC carries strict liability.

misd-agin
12th Sep 2018, 03:42
Leave early and slow down.

Bug Smasher Smasher
12th Sep 2018, 03:56
Have management treat their pilots well.

ACMS
12th Sep 2018, 09:11
Bug smasher has hit the nail on the head.

Treat Pilots with respect and stop f*****over their COS would be a terrific start.

RTO
12th Sep 2018, 11:15
One engine cruise
Has the opposite effect of what you are looking for.

hans brinker
12th Sep 2018, 14:17
The usual ones to name a few :

- minimise APU usage whenever feasible (opt for ground power / ext. Air cond)
- minimise taxi time (intersection takeoff)
- use the most favourable runway according to your departure direction (this one deserves a little more discussion as there are quite a few threats associated to it)
- use company provided CI
- directs
- optimum levels
- short approaches
- low drag/low noise approaches
- idle reverse
- one engine taxi
etc..
Be careful with the directs, we use wind planning for best routes on longer legs. I have seen increases in flight time of 15 minutes after getting a direct (off course we didn't take the direct...).

bucks_raj
12th Sep 2018, 15:51
Realy?!
if you burn 30,000lbs of fossile fuel during your trip you really think 300lbs matters?
Its just a feel good maneuver. Virtue signaling.



I think exactly the same way.... but

My company got a 100 a/c , I only hope that no one does the maths...

KenV
13th Sep 2018, 17:27
Best way to reduce and even eliminate fuel cost? Stay on the ground and never light the fires. Works every time under any condition.

The Old Swedish
13th Sep 2018, 18:07
On a narrow body you can safe up to 15kgs if you land with a reduced flap setting. A gear up landing will safe even more I guess! :}

Why is that technique not in the above mentioned green operating chapter? :E

hans brinker
13th Sep 2018, 22:22
Don't run the APU either. You can then either freeze or sweat your bollocks off while the management come up with more great initiatives from their air conditioned offices....

Sadly, you are right....

hans brinker
13th Sep 2018, 22:24
Realy?!
if you burn 30,000lbs of fossile fuel during your trip you really think 300lbs matters?
Its just a feel good maneuver. Virtue signaling.

Switching to NEO engines saves 15%, or in your example 4500#. Even saving 1% in an industry that regularly has 2% margins can make a difference.

GlenQuagmire
13th Sep 2018, 22:49
You could save a bit of fuel and a lot of localised pollution if you used towbots to take aircraft from the gate and towed them almost to the hold point so that they minimised taxiing and waiting about with the engines running. Nice autonomous towbots ensuring you only have three minutes from startup to takeoff. Heahrow would love it!

tdracer
14th Sep 2018, 02:44
SeaTac airport makes a big deal of having pre-conditioned air and ground power available at every gate so there is no need to run the APU at the gate until you're ready to start engines.

poldek77
14th Sep 2018, 06:59
When your flight is fully booked never accept anybody on jumpseat to keep a/c weight low :ugh:

Superpilot
15th Sep 2018, 08:15
Learn your three times table

Skyjob
15th Sep 2018, 12:39
Be careful with the directs, we use wind planning for best routes on longer legs. I have seen increases in flight time of 15 minutes after getting a direct (off course we didn't take the direct...).
Be careful comparing directs to original route, as (unless winds are known along/abeam waypoints on direct clearance) the time increment cannot be relied upon.
This is the reason why, when all actual winds are used at waypoints, the ABEAM functions in FMC on NG exists, so not to loose valuable data in case of direct clearance...

An operator entering AVG WIND at first waypoint after TOC does so for preflight planning and estimate of time and fuel on arrival in comparison to flight plan, not for inflight use.
Same operator requiring TOC WIND to be entered (wind after ~20 minutes would be good) does so for optimising fuel burn up to TOC, not for estimate time and fuel on arrival.
Therefore not applying both above upsets the preflight prediction on longer flights with multiple wind changes, giving inaccurate data for crew to work with, showing incorrect times and fuel prior to flight.

If FMC is left unchanged and no actual winds for each waypoint are entered (which could be done when time permitting preflight or in cruise flight), when executing a direct clearance, last known wind (AVG or TOC in prior example) is used to predict from next waypoint and onward estimates, however actual wind at time of execution is used for prediction to next waypoint.

When getting cleared for a direct clearance of an hour, where FMC entered TWC at TOC was ~100kts, but wind at execution of direct is HWC ~100kts a ~40% groundspeed differential is observed in estimate for next waypoint, this equates to ~25 minutes.


On a narrow body you can safe up to 15kgs if you land with a reduced flap setting.
On similar narrow body you can save up to 50-70kg if you land using idle reverse thrust which can sometimes only be achieved by wasting those 15kgs saved through use of lower flaps. (Slow it down +15kgs, ability for landing with idle reverse -70kgs, saving 55kgs!)

oicur12.again
15th Sep 2018, 17:14
Superpilot nailed it.

I suspect I know what tree he’s barking up.

If you are 30 miles to run, flap 2, 180 knots 3000’ with the chicken stick out then you are wasting more fuel than the savings just listed above save.

Seen it too many times in my career, so many pilots totally clueless about altitude versus track miles.

The Old Swedish
15th Sep 2018, 17:27
On similar narrow body you can save up to 50-70kg if you land using idle reverse thrust which can sometimes only be achieved by wasting those 15kgs saved through use of lower flaps. (Slow it down +15kgs, ability for landing with idle reverse -70kgs, saving 55kgs!)

CanĎt agree more!

B2N2
15th Sep 2018, 17:36
Switching to NEO engines saves 15%, or in your example 4500#. Even saving 1% in an industry that regularly has 2% margins can make a difference.

If they work correctly and donít need to be shutdown in flight.
Oh wait...thatís probably how they get their 15% savings..

RVF750
15th Sep 2018, 17:37
Agree. also a good one is if you've gone for high speed but get an intermediate level off FFS SLOW DOWN. Keeping the higher speed at low or mid altitudes haemorages fuel like nothing else. Not that ATC gives a hoot....

oceancrosser
16th Sep 2018, 13:19
SeaTac airport makes a big deal of having pre-conditioned air and ground power available at every gate so there is no need to run the APU at the gate until you're ready to start engines.

Readily available Ground Power and Air is not very common at our US destination. Lots of prolonged APU use. Good on SEA!

Escape Path
16th Sep 2018, 22:06
Any one knows what the difference in full consumption is if you modify the descent speed from CI (around 270kias) to say 300 on a medium size aircraft? You'll keep cruise power a few minutes longer but your descent will be shorter, taking advantage of the higher GS/TAS.

I've done this to save a couple of minutes when going behind schedule but don't know how does it affect fuel economy (haven't done the fuel gauges vs computer flight plan math to be honest).

Skyjob
17th Sep 2018, 15:09
Any one knows what the difference in full consumption is if you modify the descent speed from CI (around 270kias) to say 300 on a medium size aircraft? You'll keep cruise power a few minutes longer but your descent will be shorter, taking advantage of the higher GS/TAS.
I've done this to save a couple of minutes when going behind schedule but don't know how does it affect fuel economy (haven't done the fuel gauges vs computer flight plan math to be honest).
Work out the fuel flow for your aircraft type in cruise (~2200/2500 kg/hour for 737);
Work out time spent extra in cruise (check against calculated TOD to get minutes extra) then based on above work out additional cruise fuel requirement;
Work out the fuel flow for your aircraft type in descent (~500 kr/hour for 737);
Work out time spent less in descent (use RTA for runway prior and after KIAS increase (earlier arrival therefore time gained, then reduce it by additional time spent in cruise), this gives descent saving;
You WILL find out that a minute extra in fuel in cruise (~40 kg) can only be regained by reducing descent time by >6 minutes which means this was it is to generate a fuel saving.
Starting an idle descent as soon as possible at best glide speed (lowest CI) is most fuel efficient.

ehwatezedoing
18th Sep 2018, 14:42
- minimise taxi time (intersection takeoff)

Really!? Doing intersection takeoff to save fuel?
I guess somebody did the math and figured out that it will still offset the occasional overrunís cost :confused:

Escape Path
18th Sep 2018, 17:04
Thanks Skyjob, that's quite helpful. Should be interesting to run the math even if you already gave out the answer haha

@ehwhatezedoing

Forget a runway overrun. That's taking it to the extreme. Depending on runway length, current conditions and aircraft weight, you would need to reduce flex to a lower degree to meet perform requirements plus the increase in fuel associated with the increase in power. Unless really light on weight (i.e. no reduction in flex for takeoff) I don't think it would save too much.

P.S. We aren't allowed to do intersection takeoffs at our gig

wiedehopf
18th Sep 2018, 18:03
Isn't higher climb power better for fuel consumption?

I would assume the same applies to takeoff power no?

wiedehopf
18th Sep 2018, 18:33
Low power to save engine life and then full thrust if you are going to get a continuous climb.
High thrust on ground can cause much higher temps than in flight and temp = $$$.

I thought this thread was about saving fuel cost ;)
Just put a spare engine in the cargo compartment.

sonicbum
18th Sep 2018, 18:43
Really!? Doing intersection takeoff to save fuel?
I guess somebody did the math and figured out that it will still offset the occasional overrunís cost :confused:

Iíll tell You a secret : we do have performance data for intersection departures without having to gamble.

VinRouge
18th Sep 2018, 21:51
Isn't higher climb power better for fuel consumption?

I would assume the same applies to takeoff power no?
Fuel critical sector, max rated TO provides lowest burn.

however, cost in terms of engine life are significant so most stick with derate/flex for commercial reasons. unless you have an engine maintainance contract that doesnt mention flex/drt vs Max, in which case, let er rip!!!

tdracer
19th Sep 2018, 19:30
Fuel critical sector, max rated TO provides lowest burn.

however, cost in terms of engine life are significant so most stick with derate/flex for commercial reasons. unless you have an engine maintainance contract that doesnt mention flex/drt vs Max, in which case, let er rip!!!
Several years ago, we were investigating a particular Asian airline that had horrible time-on-wing for their 737/CFM56 engines. Mainly sort haul, they were running out of EGT margin in ~3,000 hours - at a time when the typical operator was in the range of 15,000-20,000 hour time on wing.
Come to find out, they were using max TO every single takeoff - never a derate of any kind. At around a million dollars to overhaul an engine, you'd have to save a whole lot of of fuel to justify an extra two million dollars/year in engine maintenance...

MCDU2
20th Sep 2018, 15:29
Gotta love being stuck behind the locos in Europe. If they are in front you are snookered. They do a lovely fully managed descent CDA at 250kts and in sight of the field then ask for a short base and final and the rest of us are on the speedbrake. No doubt pat themselves on the back for all that fuel they saved and what wonderful airman they are. Seems airmanship and a bit of respect for other operators sharing the sky has long left this industry. Instead its a bunch of lemmings who are to scared to take the fuel they require to do the job properly. One day you might actually take the time to compare the fuel flow on a high speed descent at IDLE power with your 250kt version.

FlyingStone
20th Sep 2018, 21:22
Seems airmanship and a bit of respect for other operators sharing the sky has long left this industry. Instead its a bunch of lemmings who are to scared to take the fuel they require to do the job properly.

Playing a bit of a devil's advocate here, so... What is the optimum descend speed? Vmo, Vmo-5, Vmo-10? Supposedly I'm no. 3 for a straight in approach to XYZ airfield, and I have planned to fly at 340 kts, but now I'm stuck behind this slow guy doing 300 and I have to use speedbrake, bunch of idiots in front of me scared of the barber pole... How does it work in this case, where is the point where the speed becomes too slow?

Hat, coat...

PS: I agree we are all in the same airspace, but people with a lot of information about operating costs (much more than it's available to an average pilot) have come up with a cost index that keeps the boat afloat, and it might be different for another airline operating same aircraft type. It's then ATC's job to adjust the speeds to keep the flow going, sometimes the slow guys have to speed and and sometimes the fast guys need to slow down.

pineteam
21st Sep 2018, 07:07
On similar narrow body you can save up to 50-70kg if you land using idle reverse thrust which can sometimes only be achieved by wasting those 15kgs saved through use of lower flaps. (Slow it down +15kgs, ability for landing with idle reverse -70kgs, saving 55kgs!)

On the A320 family using flaps 3 or flaps full is only about +-3/6kts on the VAPP. Does not make a big difference for the landing roll. Using autobrake low with flaps 3 and reverse idle works very nicely unless you operate on short runways I guess.
The green procedure recommends Flaps 3. I’m pretty convinced they take the potential extra fuel burn of using more reverse thrust into considerations.

nomorecatering
21st Sep 2018, 07:16
"Low power to save engine life and then full thrust if you are going to get a continuous climb.
High thrust on ground can cause much higher temps than in flight and temp = $$$."


Can someone explain this. Non jet driver here. I thought the EGT would be lowest at sea level due to highest air density and that EGT climbs as you climb in altitude.

Dannyboy39
21st Sep 2018, 07:39
Several years ago, we were investigating a particular Asian airline that had horrible time-on-wing for their 737/CFM56 engines. Mainly sort haul, they were running out of EGT margin in ~3,000 hours - at a time when the typical operator was in the range of 15,000-20,000 hour time on wing.
Come to find out, they were using max TO every single takeoff - never a derate of any kind. At around a million dollars to overhaul an engine, you'd have to save a whole lot of of fuel to justify an extra two million dollars/year in engine maintenance...

Treble that cost. Depends also on hour to cycle ratio and operating environment, which being in Asia can be vastly lower than a benign environment. A ME3 engine for example, could operate for probably half the time as Euro-loco, which should go to the LLP limiter at 20K cycles (if operated at ~1.5 FH : 1 FC).

donpizmeov
23rd Sep 2018, 07:54
"Low power to save engine life and then full thrust if you are going to get a continuous climb.
High thrust on ground can cause much higher temps than in flight and temp = $$$."


Can someone explain this. Non jet driver here. I thought the EGT would be lowest at sea level due to highest air density and that EGT climbs as you climb in altitude.

The higher you go, the less air there is, which means less fuel can be burnt, which means the fire in the can isn't as big, which means the EGT reduces.

Uplinker
23rd Sep 2018, 16:51
You could save a bit of fuel and a lot of localised pollution if you used towbots to take aircraft from the gate and towed them almost to the hold point so that they minimised taxiing and waiting about with the engines running. Nice autonomous towbots ensuring you only have three minutes from startup to takeoff. Heahrow would love it!





Wasn’t that trialled somewhere in Germany? Not auto bots, but towing to the holding point. It would only really work with towbarless tugs, otherwise there would be too much faffing about at the holding point. Also the tugs would need a separate route back to the apron, since I don’t think they would be able to pass alongside aircraft on a normal width taxiway?

A system called Wheel Tug has also been invented; electric traction motors in the nose wheels, powered by the APU.

Escape Path
25th Sep 2018, 23:23
One day you might actually take the time to compare the fuel flow on a high speed descent at IDLE power with your 250kt version.

The difference (savings) come from starting descent earlier (i.e. setting thrust to idle earlier) in a low speed descent. Since for a higher speed descent your calculated TOD will be further away than for a low speed one, you'll have cruise power for some minutes longer.

Vessbot
26th Sep 2018, 01:09
The difference (savings) come from starting descent earlier (i.e. setting thrust to idle earlier) in a low speed descent. Since for a higher speed descent your calculated TOD will be further away than for a low speed one, you'll have cruise power for some minutes longer.
Just to clarify for anyone who may have had the same misreading as me initially, that's further away from the airplane before the decent starts, not further away from the airport