In an ideal world, the software gurus who implement flight-planning systems would actually speak and listen to : (in no particular order )

a) CFMU,
b) flight-deck,
c) ATC & Ops staff

and design said systems that give flight-deck ACCURATE CFPs that resemble real world info with regard to ATC restrictions and fuel burn.

Surely in this day and age it wouldn't be an impossibility ?! :confused:

Scroggs
 

The light bulb in my brain illuminates!!!

Ta!

Hi Scroggs,
just out of interest what does your CFP allow regarding fuel from TOD on this particular sector.
Rgds.

Firstly a big OK! to Scroggs and the ATC guys and girls for thrashing this one out. It really does restore faith in pprune after all the c**p we sometimes get on other forums.

What would be really useful would be a list of waypoints and altitude restrictions that are NOT published in our documentation - we all know about 260 Margo (we only ask because it is normally below economic height there!), 200 Tebra etc, but there are a stack of others that Thales/Aerad (or whatever they are today) do not print.

Europe has its own luxurious set of 'secrets' which you get to know after a few goes (eg level 290 30 before TOP) into Italian airspace). It would be nice to get those too!

Perhaps our friendly forum mod could put up a 'sticky' for contributions?

As Scroggs says, saving 1T out of a total of 10T sounds like nothing, but as he points out, it is a big chunk of what we actually have to play with, and an idea of the various restrictions would give us a little hammer to hit the planners with as they get ever tighter and tighter on our reserves?

Hmmm, interesting. It undoubtedly is below economic height but not by much if the 'when ready' descents are anything to go by. Of course it differes from type to type, airline to airline but also within airlines on the same type. However, most of the time we give an unrestricted descent to FL260 we see the a/c leveling off just a couple of miles after MARGO anyway.

Now, 260 level by Newcastle for Glasgow inbounds is a different matter...

Good thread, and brings the point about cross skill cooperation to the fore. In the good old days, we did a lot of fam flights and all the guys in MAN and LBA appreciated them, espescially the descent profiling and the capabilities of the little 'Bus to go down ! It still irritates me that some of the trap heights that are applied to us are not published obviously, things like the 290 by DUB or LIFFY when coming off the ocean and the early descents from the west into LGW. If we depart Dom Republic or Jamaica and get a random route up through New York airspace, level allocation can be a lottery. You may have planned and filed 370 but when they say you have 280 'til 30W it can really upset dinner ! I have had to get rather firm with NY before and eventually we got 330 after 2 hours. Now we are 'encouraged' to be fuel effective, so we were being good boys. By 30W, I am looking at less than a tonne over minimal diversion and we are estimating LGW in the morning rush. I did a similar thing to Scroggs and called early, we were sequenced very effeciently, no one else held because of us and we landed about 700kgs over diversion minima. Now to put things into perspective, 1 go around on a 330 will use at least 2 tonnes of fuel, even if you just do a visual circuit - been there, seen it ! So when we say we feel more comfy with a tonne thinking time, perhaps that helps.

Bring back Fam flights :ok:

Chokdee I can't remember what fuel the CFP on that sector allowed from TOD; I'm on a Delhi tomorrow night and I'll see if I can sneak a look at the last couple of days' Naritas to see what the ballpark figure is. I suspect it's around 2 tonnes or less.

Of course, other VS901s may well not have had the same inbound routing as we had, but they almost always end in a LAM3A, so the figures should be comparable.

Scroggs

Scroggs - I am just curious as to what sort of block and trip fuel the Airbus would use on a Narita-EGLL flight?

Speedmaster
 

I think Scroggs is off earning his living (bloody right too, give the rest of us some time off :) ) so I'll answer for him. My last NRT-LHR had a trip fuel of 100T and a Ramp of 111T. That was in September, when the winds over Siberia are quite light, - the average wind component on that sector was -17, it can be significantly higher in winter. (And that sector was on a A346, the -300 is about 20% less, from memory.)

Thanks Scroggs.

Back from DEL!

Yep, TOD to LHR is usually below 2 tonnes burn - 1 tonne for an A343. My last NRT (A346) had a component of -46 and the ramp fuel was around 118 tonnes at a TOW of 355 (I think - don't have the CFP any more).

Cheers Scroggs. So from that, the flight plan will be very accurate up until TOD @ LHR, where potentially it goes haywire for the 10-15 min's holding. Here's hoping the 5% RRSV is still avail.

Ah - I think your understanding of the way our CFP is put together is slightly wide of the mark. It starts from a calculation of the fuel required to fly the flight plan to arrive at the end of the landing run with zero fuel. At each waypoint en-route, a 'min fuel required' number is included, which allows us to calculate from the fuel on board what we are likely to arrive with.

So, when I say that the CFP allows 1 to 2 tonnes from TOD, that is the calculated minimum fuel required to fly the planned arrival. It makes no allowances for ATC restrictions unless they are known to the planners at the time, or for holding which is allowed for (to a degree) in our minimum overhead fuel requirement and our route reserve fuel - which is 5% only if no En Route Alternate is specified (very rare), otherwise it is the 15 minutes' fuel I referred to in an earlier post.

Scroggs

Yes, we have a higher minimum fuel for some schedules, which acknowleges the inevitable holding at their planned arrival times.

Scroggs - very interesting post. Although we don't see A340s doing long haul out of my airport, I'm sure the folk who fly B737s, B757s, E145s and various smaller 'buses to /from us have equally valuable operational issues that they could pass on to ATC, who may be blissfully ignorant of them.

I heartily echo the views of 250kts and BOAC re. pilot/ATC contact - we need more of it, as an industry. I know it's difficult with max. rostered hours/SRATCOH duty time etc but it's got to be the only way to understand each others' jobs, responsibilities and issues and improve the overall safety- and service levels for all, long-term. Thanks again.

I heartily agree that direct contact is the best way to educate each group about the other's problems. However, no one route experience or ATC visit will highlight all the problems that exist for each side of the equation, so question-and-answer sessions like this one can fill in many of the gaps.

I believe that my airline has an ATC liaison pilot who deals with air experience, though I know little more than that. I will try to find out more; the latest DoT rules make it explicitly clear that you ATC peeps are 'permitted personnel' on UK flight decks, so there is no regulatory reason why you shouldn't come with us - we just have to persuade the bean counters that we can afford the hotel rooms for you (not to mention the beers, food, beers, entertainment and - oh yes - beers).

Scroggs

Scroggs;

Personally I think that prior to Capt. upgrade all pilots should go through a days training on ATC and what really goes on <G>... I have had both newbies and multi thousand hour Capt's. in my classes and it is amazing at what some pilots think ATC can or should do <G>.

If the UK doesn't have something similar to our Operation Raincheck classes, they should think about having them. There is one Scot who was on here a while back who has been to one of our classes and he can best report as to what he thought. Like you said, we can't answer all the questions in an eight hour day ( sometimes longer) but we can put a very good dent in it, and show you in such a way that just typing about it on here can not even compare with...

That said, we also need to have controllers in the jumpseat as well as in the sims to see what is happening in your neck of the woods. Well most of them, we do have some ATP rated folks here flying jets too...

regards

Scott

I understand its mostly the FAA that is blocking the fam program (or something like it) for controllers. You guys are still in my manual as being legal to fly. Pretty high on the list at that. There is also a pilot program(yeah, its funny) to allow offline JS activity. It also includes ATC.

Lots of visits going on at LACC now.

All pilots welcome. Check with your ATC liason pilot if you have one.

We also now have a pilot on liason at our emergency training - which has been found to be very useful (on both sides I think).

Fam flights available on BA and GB. I believe Britannia are also working on it.

BOAC : Re unpublished standing agreemments.
Inbound EGBB/EGNX from south Via BIG FL260/40DME BIG. Via MID FL250/35DME MID

Inbound EGFF/EGGD/EGTF via BIG FL280/40DME BIG

Subject to variation in coordination up to FL300. Reason: traffic excluded from London Upper Sectors (sectors 1+2)

VL