View Full Version : 787 tankering question
Can't find any guidelines / links for 787 tankering.
Anyone have this (or emprical knowledge) of how much landing fuel would give adequate ullage space bettween fuel and top skin. Have heard 15 to 20 tonnes mentioned (no supporting ref. this may just be someone suggesting half tanks)?
Previous company left it to pilot's discretion but suggested taking destination Non Environmental Icing into consideration at temps below 15 degrees with high humidity.
Also heard some companies ban tankering in contaminated conditions.
HOVIS
26th Mar 2023, 12:14
Talk to Saudi crew. They do it all the time.
springbok449
26th Mar 2023, 20:32
When you say: previous company left it to its pilots discretion… was that on 787 or another type?
ScepticalOptomist
27th Mar 2023, 00:19
Can't find any guidelines / links for 787 tankering.
Anyone have this (or emprical knowledge) of how much landing fuel would give adequate ullage space bettween fuel and top skin. Have heard 15 to 20 tonnes mentioned (no supporting ref. this may just be someone suggesting half tanks)?
Previous company left it to pilot's discretion but suggested taking destination Non Environmental Icing into consideration at temps below 15 degrees with high humidity.
Also heard some companies ban tankering in contaminated conditions.
Our ops manuals have no restriction other than a set reduction to the MLW. Not sure why that limitation exists.
SB, It was on the 787, unfortunately the previous company didn’t give guidance on the landing fuel level required to avoid cold soak frost. Neither did they advise what destination temperature was likely to result in NEI.
Historically there are instances of NEI in temperatures up to 20 degrees with high humidity and very cold fuel. The 787 composite wing tends to keep fuel temperatures much higher than conventional metal wings (so I suspect the air trigger temperature would be much lower).
Price / metric ton $830.3 in New York In London it is $804.2
As it typically costs us 175 kg to carry one tonne across the pond this looks like a clear loss maker (unless the airport charge significantly more than shown here)
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1405x1359/95c7aefe_9459_4512_a963_184a24f414a4_8fd6d64ab52b2fef7723d5a b9329e5d844931026.jpeg
springbok449
28th Mar 2023, 03:32
RMC,
I asked the question for the reason you mentioned in your post above ie the composite wings….
i currently fly the 78 and there are no restrictions to tankering other than MLW at destination…
Beakor
28th Mar 2023, 08:20
From our 787 OMB:
”Maximum arrival fuel 20,000Kgs (See note 2)
Note 2: When planning tankering, consideration should be given to the formation of upper wing surface frost/ice in the vicinity of the fuel tanks. It has been determined that “warm” fuel uplifted at destination will normally have the effect of agitating the fuel in the wing tanks. This should melt ice/frost and prevent the formation of further ice during the turn round provided the maximum arrival fuel load is restricted. This figure is for guidance only. Higher arrival fuel may be planned provided consideration is given to the weather conditions at the destination airport.”
Brilliant, used to fly with Virgin guys eight years ago. None of them tankered fuel from UK to the USA at that time. Does anyone flying from the the UK to US tanker with current fuel prices?
k.swiss
29th Mar 2023, 14:03
Our ops manuals have no restriction other than a set reduction to the MLW. Not sure why that limitation exists.
When tankering our crews plan to land at exactly MLW. (You take as much fuel as possible so normally MTOW/MLW is the only restriction) In reality, due to shortcut, favorable wind and other factors you could end up saving more fuel and landing above MLW. (hopefully one would spot this and hold) Thus reducing MLW on tankering sectors by 200KG sometimes 500KG can be beneficial and give you some margin in the case of an unexpected shortcut.
Kswiss, Is this on the 787. Max landing weight would be ideal but if we have to deice due to NEI then we may want to reduce below that.
t-bag
29th Mar 2023, 15:23
(hopefully one would spot this and hold).
Not a lot of point tanking then...... although I supose on the 787 you could jettison instead?
Really???
Sidestick_n_Rudder
29th Mar 2023, 16:54
I don’t have any numbers, but have tankered between 20-30 Tonnes in the 787 several times and never had any issues with skin frost.
The A330 OTOH was very prone to NEI. I operated in and out of KEF and we had to transfer the outer tanks immediately after landing, otherwise the hoar frost would start forming within minutes, resulting in unnecessary de-icing.
k.swiss
30th Mar 2023, 03:02
Kswiss, Is this on the 787. Max landing weight would be ideal but if we have to deice due to NEI then we may want to reduce below that.
I apologize no. Was replying to answer why there is a restriction in MLW for some operators.
ScepticalOptomist
31st Mar 2023, 03:22
When tankering our crews plan to land at exactly MLW. (You take as much fuel as possible so normally MTOW/MLW is the only restriction) In reality, due to shortcut, favorable wind and other factors you could end up saving more fuel and landing above MLW. (hopefully one would spot this and hold) Thus reducing MLW on tankering sectors by 200KG sometimes 500KG can be beneficial and give you some margin in the case of an unexpected shortcut.
That makes sense, however our manual states the MLW is to be reduced by 2,000kg.
Same logic may apply as a buffer, I haven’t asked the question of our tech team.