Garuda fuel saving bonus scheme
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: the land of Oz
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garuda fuel saving bonus scheme
From news.com
Garuda Pilots' Association president Captain Stephanus Geraldus said he was concerned about Garuda's policy of paying pilots a 3 per cent bonus if they conserved fuel, and said it could have been the reason why the pilot continued with the fatal landing in Yogyakarta.
"This policy for fuel efficiency for individual pilots could hamper flight safety," he said.
"We are rejecting that policy because we are concerned about the safety. There should not be payment (under) this policy for individuals," he said on ABC radio.
Captain Geraldus said he could not be sure that the pilot of Garuda flight GA-200 had been influenced by the fuel-saving policy.
"But as you know the speed was very high, maybe the captain wanted to save fuel," he said.
WTF?????
What kind of safety culture does this impress upon the crew?? "Get the job done quickly and we will line your pockets"
This is verging on criminal. Garuda management should be strung up for implementing such a scheme.
200
- Garuda pilots who save fuel receive 3 per cent bonus
- Scheme may have been reason for Yogyakarta crash
- Garuda Captain fears scheme hampering flight safety
Garuda Pilots' Association president Captain Stephanus Geraldus said he was concerned about Garuda's policy of paying pilots a 3 per cent bonus if they conserved fuel, and said it could have been the reason why the pilot continued with the fatal landing in Yogyakarta.
"This policy for fuel efficiency for individual pilots could hamper flight safety," he said.
"We are rejecting that policy because we are concerned about the safety. There should not be payment (under) this policy for individuals," he said on ABC radio.
Captain Geraldus said he could not be sure that the pilot of Garuda flight GA-200 had been influenced by the fuel-saving policy.
"But as you know the speed was very high, maybe the captain wanted to save fuel," he said.
WTF?????
What kind of safety culture does this impress upon the crew?? "Get the job done quickly and we will line your pockets"
This is verging on criminal. Garuda management should be strung up for implementing such a scheme.
200
Rumour was rife in the early seventies that AN or TN had a similar policy. The rumour reported B727s on the flights from East Coast Oz to Perth would shut down the centre engine to save fuel. I haven't flown them but most jet aircraft burn more fuel when an engine is shut down so I didn't give the rumour much credence.
Maybe the airlines should give ATCO's a fuel bonus because there are a lot of savings to be made in the terminal area (especially with the design of STARs and SIDs).
Maybe the airlines should give ATCO's a fuel bonus because there are a lot of savings to be made in the terminal area (especially with the design of STARs and SIDs).
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Maybe the airlines should give ATCO's a fuel bonus because there are a lot of savings to be made in the terminal area (especially with the design of STARs and SIDs).
"But as you know the speed was very high, maybe the captain wanted to save fuel," he said.
WTF?????
What kind of safety culture does this impress upon the crew?? "Get the job done quickly and we will line your pockets"
WTF?????
What kind of safety culture does this impress upon the crew?? "Get the job done quickly and we will line your pockets"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: the land of Oz
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point RD
I have never flown jets so can't comment. In the aircraft I have flown you throttle back to conserve fuel (long range cruise etc)
Any jet jocks able to comment?
Is it possible to reduce the fuel usage by altering speed?
200
I have never flown jets so can't comment. In the aircraft I have flown you throttle back to conserve fuel (long range cruise etc)
Any jet jocks able to comment?
Is it possible to reduce the fuel usage by altering speed?
200
Last edited by TwoHundred; 13th Apr 2007 at 00:34. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe what they are suggesting is that they stayed clean longer in order to save fuel? Doesn't quite add up to me though, you either have your energy management under control or not. Guess the report will tell.
Yet to be born 737 freighter mob here will apparently be using a similar scheme or employees getting a share of annual fuel savings. Not sure if its the same logic as Garuda though.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Aust.
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what they mean is that if the pilot went around then another 500-1000kgs of fuel would have been used in the go-around and subsequent manouvering to land. Therefore, the Capt, even though grossly unstable decided to continue the landing.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour was rife in the early seventies that AN or TN had a similar policy.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the long ago we used to pay a fuel bonus (B707/DC8) but it was calculated on TO/CRZ to TOD fuel only as it was recognised that the crews did not have any control over the DESC/APP/LDG segment. Three return services a week Lon/Sin. It would be nice to say we didn't include the last segments because we didn't want to "encourage" risky behaviour, but I dont recall that being part of the rationale. It might be safe to say that the overall standard of professionalism was then better than it is now and it would not have been that issue anyhow, I honestly don't know?
They were real fuel guzzlers and did not have any of the beaut FMS gear of today, but did have an FE. The options were to set and sorta forget CRZ power/be a bit lazy in chasing Temp deviations/Mn/SFC/SGR or be professional and continuously work the numbers. The flights traversed 50 or so degrees of Latitude. It was then as now that chasing the 0.xxxxx %s in costs, which added to other incrementals made the difference.
With todays FMS managing fuel efficiently is a doddle and should make staying on profile even easier, but neither it nor any whizbangery can insure against dumbosity.
They were real fuel guzzlers and did not have any of the beaut FMS gear of today, but did have an FE. The options were to set and sorta forget CRZ power/be a bit lazy in chasing Temp deviations/Mn/SFC/SGR or be professional and continuously work the numbers. The flights traversed 50 or so degrees of Latitude. It was then as now that chasing the 0.xxxxx %s in costs, which added to other incrementals made the difference.
With todays FMS managing fuel efficiently is a doddle and should make staying on profile even easier, but neither it nor any whizbangery can insure against dumbosity.
Coral
I wasn't having a go at ATC but there are some improvements that can be made wrt energy management during descent. eg, On the Boree arrival into YSSY for Runway 34L/R after meeting the 9,000ft requirement there is approx 25NM to travel before being allowed to descend below 6,000ft. A lot of fuel is used during this segment which is after energy has been dissipated to meet the 250kts below 10,000ft requirement (ie slower than the best glide speed for most jet aircraft). Fuel would be saved if the 250kt requirement was lowered to 8,000ft which would allow pilots to meet the 9000ft altitude requirement at normal descent speed and then commence reducing to 250kts. Thus application of thrust would be significantly delayed. There would be a few seconds difference in timeing that ATC would have to allow for but it would not be a major issue.
I wasn't having a go at ATC but there are some improvements that can be made wrt energy management during descent. eg, On the Boree arrival into YSSY for Runway 34L/R after meeting the 9,000ft requirement there is approx 25NM to travel before being allowed to descend below 6,000ft. A lot of fuel is used during this segment which is after energy has been dissipated to meet the 250kts below 10,000ft requirement (ie slower than the best glide speed for most jet aircraft). Fuel would be saved if the 250kt requirement was lowered to 8,000ft which would allow pilots to meet the 9000ft altitude requirement at normal descent speed and then commence reducing to 250kts. Thus application of thrust would be significantly delayed. There would be a few seconds difference in timeing that ATC would have to allow for but it would not be a major issue.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 62
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Savings
GB
The slowdown portion of the descent from normal descent speed to 250 knots is dependent on the Cost Index entered into the FMC. For the ANZ -400, this CI is 50, and gives a descent speed of around 254-258 KIAS, depending on weight, and the period of speed reduction is considerably reduced, as is the fuel burn for descent. ATC in Auckland are now running a trial with QF and ANZ -400's (usually early and late arrivals) that involve a constant descent rate, flown in VNAV, with no input from ATC other than clearance to fly the Star from the OCA boundary. This will result in considerable savings to approach fuel, as the aircraft flies the profile with virtually no power addition above idle until selection of gear down, flap 20 (provided a low drag approach is flown). The FMC manages the entire descent in VNAV at idle thrust. So far the results appear to be promising. However, as others have posted, trying to fit in departures, domestic arrivals etc will be a challenge, although not an insurmountable one.
400R
The slowdown portion of the descent from normal descent speed to 250 knots is dependent on the Cost Index entered into the FMC. For the ANZ -400, this CI is 50, and gives a descent speed of around 254-258 KIAS, depending on weight, and the period of speed reduction is considerably reduced, as is the fuel burn for descent. ATC in Auckland are now running a trial with QF and ANZ -400's (usually early and late arrivals) that involve a constant descent rate, flown in VNAV, with no input from ATC other than clearance to fly the Star from the OCA boundary. This will result in considerable savings to approach fuel, as the aircraft flies the profile with virtually no power addition above idle until selection of gear down, flap 20 (provided a low drag approach is flown). The FMC manages the entire descent in VNAV at idle thrust. So far the results appear to be promising. However, as others have posted, trying to fit in departures, domestic arrivals etc will be a challenge, although not an insurmountable one.
400R
Last edited by 400Rulz; 13th Apr 2007 at 08:21.
400Rulz
I agree with the thrust of your post. QF has been flying the tailored approaches into MEL (early morning only) for quite some time now and it will provide savings when everything is worked out and signed off - paperwork moves slowly in CASA and Air Services. The STARs and SIDs in use in SYD are another matter and what I suggested in my previous post could be introduced fairly quickly (QF -400s use CI100 which at the heavy weights we operate almost every sector results in a descent speed of 285kts, the B767s and B737s descend at similar speeds).
My previous post was intended to be just one example because of Coral's comment
Other efficiencies are easily identified but I didn't want to make this thread too long.
When trying to save fuel, how do you avoid being in trail of an Asian based carrier who is in landing configuration from 15NM out?
I agree with the thrust of your post. QF has been flying the tailored approaches into MEL (early morning only) for quite some time now and it will provide savings when everything is worked out and signed off - paperwork moves slowly in CASA and Air Services. The STARs and SIDs in use in SYD are another matter and what I suggested in my previous post could be introduced fairly quickly (QF -400s use CI100 which at the heavy weights we operate almost every sector results in a descent speed of 285kts, the B767s and B737s descend at similar speeds).
My previous post was intended to be just one example because of Coral's comment
I look forward to the solutions that the mere mortals of ATC have thus far been unable to implement.
When trying to save fuel, how do you avoid being in trail of an Asian based carrier who is in landing configuration from 15NM out?
further to your example GB, the decel and below ht all happen quickly after transition; any significant QNH change and the boards come out or the power comes up; if you stick religously to the requirements that is (on those acft where you cant preset the QNH in the FMC)
Interesting that AirNZ and Qantas are doing trial arrivals in Auckland with different cost indexes. That in itself would cause separation problems. These sort of trials should have aircraft all within a narrow speed range surely.
Bottums Up
Slight thread drift.
Does Cost Index 50 on say a Boeing Boeing, equal CI 50 on a Douglas Boeing or an Airbus?
CI50 on the Boeing Douglas will give a cruise of M0.78 give or take up to .01 or so, and a descent of nominally M0.78 into 313 to 320.
Does Cost Index 50 on say a Boeing Boeing, equal CI 50 on a Douglas Boeing or an Airbus?
CI50 on the Boeing Douglas will give a cruise of M0.78 give or take up to .01 or so, and a descent of nominally M0.78 into 313 to 320.