|
Ozbiggles, bean counters love these sort of cheese paring games because they are very easy to play. You measure, for example, the width of the toilet paper roll and then compute the cost savings of making it a centimetre narrower and write a sober and wel reasoned paper advocating the change accordingly.
It's an easy game to play....badly. To do it properly requires a calculation of costs related to the increased risk of a hull loss. Your insurer will do that for you. |
Ahhh... Not sure where you pulled those figures from ejectx3. On a BNE-ADL 737 flight plan from today the cost to carry is actually 48kg per 1000kg. Or 480% more than you suggest. To carry 2 hours extra fuel would cost closer to 230kg of fuel rather than 40kg. Then as ozbiggles suggests, if you multiply that across every sector then said insurance is a LOT more costly than you suggest.
|
Just based that on an average of my four east coast sectors today. Average loads.
One was 11kg/1000kg, then 7, 10 and 9. 738-800 figures. Perhaps today was unusually low . Ill check tomorrow but weights/ loads were average so I'd imagine it would be fairly accurate . All 1 hour sectors mind you. |
....you guys do realize there are still guys flying around oz with minimum fuel (max load) without the luxury of autopilots capable of basic coupled approaches, let alone autoland. No gpws, radalt, I could go on. While I agree with most of the sentiments here remember some guys have it far worse.
|
Just for the sake of interest, the cost to carry on a longer sector/larger aircraft can be significantly higher. Dallas - Brisbane; every 1000kg added will cost 380kg. To carry an extra 60 minutes of fuel on that sector (7.4T) would cost 2800kg. Not an insignificant amount. So comments like "the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire" are a touch simplistic.
|
We can all play with numbers as long as we like. One can just about prove black is white if you keep doing it long enough.
My attempt... To carry 2 hours extra fuel would cost closer to 230kg of fuel rather than 40kg. When you start talking $7 million dollars a year it sounds very impressive, but divide that into the passengers carried per year. Then what do you get. Ultimately these things will happen occasionally. That is why the person in seat 0A gets to make the FINAL decision. What about this...a 737 lands at ADL in fine weather that morning and the nose gear collapses, aircraft comes to rest on the intersection of both runways. No BOM to blame this time. Make a command decision. For the poster who said that we rely on BOM every time we flight plan all I can say is, not without considering the above scenario EVERY TIME I take a jet into the air. |
BB
On sectors limited by TOW such as DFW/BNE, carriage of additional fuel may be at the expense of payload. This means that you have the cost of the addition fuel and displaced revenue with potential loss of good-will. The punters won't understand. As an aside, I think the bean-counters of the world have better things to do than track and cost the carriage of additional or excess fuel. Does anyone have any hard evidence of this much rumoured practice? |
Not taking sides on what right or wrong. It's why pilots get paid the less big bucks. To decide when you think about costs and when you think of carrying the extra to make the odds better in your favour. For me I always like to have a good out!
|
Ken, you don't work in flight ops, do you? Of course there is I implied pressure, the emails to crew, the "new" planning systems, appeals to the crew to "think about how much fuel you put on". Cost analysis like we've seen above etc, etc. Having said that, I've never heard of anyone being questioned about their fuel requirements where I work.
|
It costs about 10kg of fuel for an extra ton of fuel on an hour sector. Ie sweet F.A. i.e. 5tons tankered for two hours = 400kgs. |
My 1.5 hr sector this morning @ MTOW - 6 tonne, 53 kg fuel burn/extra 1000 kg.
So to comfortably carry TVL as an alternate for CNS in the venerable Douglas/Boeing 717 = 75 kg extra fuel burn. |
Originally Posted by Ken
As an aside, I think the bean-counters of the world have better things to do than track and cost the carriage of additional or excess fuel. Does anyone have any hard evidence of this much rumoured practice?
|
Clarrie
You should also consider the cost of not uplifting xxxxkgs fuel at the destination airport when fuel at that point is less than it is at the point of uplift. True, the opposite may be the case but as I understand it, the cost differences are often revealed in the FPL so as to provide guidance to drivers. PM I know of the 'pressure' to which you refer but it's really only applied in the cause of an efficient operation, diversions notwithstanding. I suggest that if it ever became common knowledge that management at any level or in any part of a company was reprimanding pilots for, or tried to interfere with, the way in which they exercised their operational prerogative, then that management would be outed in more ways than one. That said, there's nothing quite like a conspiracy. :ok: Blogs Betcha can't demonstrate that the bean-counters do it! Analysis are made as to variations in fuel prices. Graphs may be produced showing 'excess' fuel uplifts etc etc but has anyone been actually reprimanded, counselled etc for boarding xs fuel? |
The numbers we always used for increased burn when tankering fuel were; 4% per hour per ton, i.e. 5tons tankered for two hours = 400kgs. One was 11kg/1000kg, then 7, 10 and 9. |
"What about this...a 737 lands at ADL in fine weather that morning and the nose gear collapses, aircraft comes to rest on the intersection of both runways.. "
Land at Edinburgh |
Chook, in your scenario, how much runway is there from the threshold of RWY05 to the intersection where your disabled aircraft is?
Enough for a 737 to land in, in the emergency situation you put forward! |
Wasn't my scenario, it was in response to Icarus.
And your option was going to be my next point! |
Rommel special
|
Enough for a 737 to land in, in the emergency situation you put forward! Stop this nonsense about conducting operations at an airport where a major crash has occurred eg nosewheels collapse. All the airport services will be engaged at the incident site and unless you declare a fuel mayday I suspect (and would expect) you'll be told to go to...Edinburgh. |
Farken hell, Ken.
No Ken, of course the bean counters don't play with or analyse weights/fuel costs down to the most minute detail! Why would they, after all fuel and labor are only an airlines two biggest expenses, but of course they don't analyse these things closely!
For Kens benefit (why do I bother) and to provide the proof he so desperately needs, I worked for an overseas domestic carrier. We introduced slide boards to help slide disabled pax onto their seats more comfortably and to minimise staff injury during the transfer process. It was decided to place one slide board on each aircraft. Fleet total = 110. Each slide board weighed 1.1kg. That was then multiplied by 110 aircraft, and those aircraft were multiplied by the average number of cycles per year. Give or take some anomalies such as U/S aircraft, maintenance etc, we calculated the additional fuel costs of carting around those slide boards to be around $130 000 USD per year. Needless to say the slide boards ended up staying at the terminals and used upon request. Ken, here is some fun for you, in between building model planes. Research why it is that most LCC carriers today don't use the built-in air-stairs? They opt for the rampies to push aluminium mobile stairs up to the aircraft. Now before you say 'serviceability issues' or maintenance costs, think big, think outside the box, think weight of stairs vs aircraft cycles vs fuel vs..............cost. (Now that is a big hint for you!) So Ken, it is worthwhile for an airline to closely analyse fuel costs. I would like to use the same matrix on VA, lets say to analyse the combined weight, per aircraft across the fleet annually, of the Voyeur magazines. I think you would be surprised at how much fuel is burned and the associated costs. However, you would need to compare that to the revenue that the magazines bring in, to see whether output is greater or less than the input and the additional fuel costs per annum are worth it. Maybe Il Deuce has already done that, maybe not, and then again maybe Ken can ring John and suggest it:ok: Ken, go back to playing with your remote control helicopter and plane spotting. Your posts get more absurd every time. |
Cactusjack
Cactusjack
:D:D |
More Mildura questions.
Just out of idle curiosity, again; but anyone know how many ambulances are crewed and available at Mildura?. What is the emergency capacity of the base hospital (beds and doctors etc.). How many fire engines there are available at Mildura? What's the RFF call out time, muster plan and unit numbers available, on short notice - given the fog, time of day and traffic?. What is their (YMIA) large aircraft fire management capacity (foam and stuff). What procedures and staff availability are specified for dealing with a 'large' aircraft emergency in the Mildura airport 'EP' manual. No doubt the ATSB will provide accurate information.
|
Cactus
Your simple and one-dimensional mind doesn't get it. Of course carriers analyse the cost of the stuff that's carried around. Anyone with a modicum of sense would or should always try to conduct an efficient business. in fact, aircraft weight reduction programs are not all that uncommon.What I'm suggesting is that they don't do it to monitor pilot's performance. That would be quite improper and a reflection on command prerogative. You have confused oranges and apples - best you stck to writing invective ad hominem 'argument'. :ugh: |
of course the bean counters don't play with or analyse weights/fuel costs down to the most minute detail Small savings individually, but when multiplied by 1000s of sectors per year it adds up. |
Ken, how come I have a letter from my company with my average fuel order compared to everybody else?:confused:
Companies DO monitor this.:ugh: some of us just ignore it.:E |
ATSB update!
Ben Sandiland and ATSB's (shock horror!:ugh:) latest update:
Virgin Mildura fog update: This is getting interesting
The ATSB has updated its advice on the Virgin Australia landing at Mildura in fog conditions that didn’t meet the minimums acceptable under the rules for low visibility operations. It has probably begun reading and analysing the data and cockpit conversations it retrieved from the 737′s voice and data recorders. At about 1015 EST on 18 June 2013 air traffic control advised the ATSB of a fuel related occurrence involving a Boeing 737-8FE (B737), registered VH-YIR, at Mildura Airport, Victoria. The aircraft, operated by Virgin Australia, was en route from Brisbane, Queensland, to Adelaide, South Australia, with five crew and 86 passengers on board when the crew diverted the aircraft to Mildura. The aircraft had departed Brisbane at about 0630 that morning and carried sufficient fuel for the flight to Adelaide. On the basis of the weather forecasts at the time the aircraft departed Brisbane, there was no requirement to provide for an alternate airport to Adelaide. As the aircraft approached Adelaide, fog reduced the visibility at the airport to below the minimum required for landing. The crew diverted to Mildura and the aircraft landed safely at Mildura Airport at about 1010 following two instrument approaches. The fog at Adelaide was not forecast when the aircraft left Brisbane. A number of other aircraft, in addition to the B737, returned to their departure airports or diverted to alternate airports as a result of the reduced visibility at Adelaide Airport. The ATSB commenced an investigation at about 1100 on 18 June 2013 and the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were removed from the aircraft and forwarded to the ATSB’s facilities in Canberra for download. The investigation is continuing and will involve: · examination of the recorded information · interviews with the flight crew of this and other affected aircraft · examination of the operator’s procedures · review of the relevant radio and radar data · examination of the relevant weather observations and forecasts. It is anticipated that the investigation will be completed in March 2014. It is clear that this is going to be a detailed consideration of all of the factors that caused an Australian airliner’s pilots to instruct passengers to adopt the crash landing brace position and then land at a fog bound airport under circumstances where they were left with no alternative but to set down. In the background there is another question hanging in the air, which is whether Australia’s current regulations concerning the fueling of passenger flights are truly safe and adequate, or need to be reviewed and improved. The contrast between this inquiry and the disgraceful conduct of the ATSB in relation to the Pel-Air ditching near Norfolk Island in 2009 is painfully obvious. In that crash the data recorder from the jet was not recovered by the ATSB, but is probably well preserved at an easily recoverable depth. Not only did the ATSB fail to recover such vital data, it failed to canvas the fueling policies of the operator, and acted in association with CASA the safety regulator, to unfairly frame all blame on the pilot while discounting evidence that CASA failed to perform its duties of oversight, and Pel-Air failed to meet the requirements of Australian safety rules. Clearly the ATSB has found its charter and its professionalism in the Mildura fog incident. This incident has important safety ramifications for Australian mainline airlines and their passengers. Unlike the Norfolk Island disgrace, in which the ATSB although aware of the fact that none of the safety equipment on the Pel-Air jet worked as intended in a ditching, ignored its international obligation to make findings and recommendations concerning that aspect of the ditching to the world wide aviation community. Now that the ATSB has got its head back into gear when it comes to safety inquiries, perhaps it might deign to consider the findings of the Senate committee that inquired into its conduct in relation to Pel-Air before it holds its regular board meeting on 24 July. Perhaps the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, might also instruct the ATSB to re-open its Pel-Air inquiry, and do its job with the same thoroughness and fairness that it seems to be bringing to bear on the Virgin Australia incident. Yes, time is running short Minister. It would be a pity to leave the Pel-Air scandal festering away while the ATSB adopts a different, and apparently totally professional approach to the conduct of the Virgin flight that ended up in Mildura in a pea-souper, rather than in the soup, like Pel-Air. Q/ I wonder if the bureau investigators have noticed a 'Critical Safety Issue' already? If so I wonder if Beaker will be game (or not) to promulgate an official 'Safety Recommendation'? As Ben said.."This is getting interesting"...:cool: |
Charon
I'm guessing that, having allowed a second-best situation to develop, both the QF and VB crews thought that Mildura was a good option. Certainly a paradise compared to ETOPS planned alternates like Cold Bay, Adak, Shemya, Petropavlosk, Anadyr and Magadan in winter. The question you should have asked: "At what point in the flight did it appear that Adelaide might well go bad and that anywhere else nearby (same high pressure, lioght breeze, small dew point/dry bulb split) would also likely go bad (or at least risk that) too. At that point was a diversion to MEL available?" I would find that question interesting for command training courses and LOFT exercises etc. But then I scare easily. A |
Agaaaagh Ken, 'the font of plane spotting knowledge', you are like a puppy dog really - Quite stupid with little experience, easy to coax over with something dangled before it, puts itself into a comfortable position then gets kicked in the head by its wily owner! Funniest thing is that the puppy wanders off, forgets it got a kick in the head, and later on it comes back, does the same stupid thing and then cops another kick to the head!
Woof woof |
Ben Sandiland latest update:... Sandilands for one is fairly familiar with the Australian BOM and the sheer waste of multi millions of dollars to do with the global warming scam. What research is being done to ensure pilots get an improved basic fog forecast ? . |
Could the Townsville refueller ask the Mildura refueller how much was left in the tanks?
|
An earlier post offered the following scenario;
Interesting situation you often face. You arrive at aerodrome A at 2300z with fog, with a metar saying fog clearing at 0000z. But 2330z is your aerodrome B diversion fuel cutoff time.. You have fuel in tanks to hold until 0030 and make an approach to A. You have no legal obligation to divert at 2330 to B. Do you stay or do you go at 2330? An auto land to a Cat 1 facility below minima is an emergency, don't think of it any other way. It is most definitely not a plan B....Those that have done them to unprotected ILS aids will agree with me, the lack of protections even to a CAT 11/111 can result in some strange AP behaviour, I have experienced early flare and a low pass down the runway, late flare, sudden LOC divergence. To consider this as a non emergency option is pretty silly thinking..... |
Our job has two key aspects:
Science and Art. The Science is the black and white stuff. SOP's, rules, systems knowledge etc. At best, forecast is a human prediction of what mother nature will be doing in the future. A mixture of Science and Art. While it is a document by which we apply our science based rules, one must remember that it does not come with an ironclad guarantee. Sometimes we have need to look beyond the rule book, and ask, "WHAT IF............" If that means looking the KPI seeking fleet manager in the eye and telling him you made a COMMAND JUDGEMENT to carry more fuel or delay a flight or whatever then be it. Anyone can be rule based trained to do the Science part of our job. It ain 't difficult. What is difficult is to "know when to show them, know when to throw them...", as Kenny Rogers used to say. In the aftermath of an occurrence, the benchmark will not purely be the was it legal. The question will be asked, "what would/did a reasonable person have done/do in the same circumstances? A peer comparison. This approach is common in the medical profession. If 99 had done "X" and one did "Y" then there may be perception issues. (This is a general discussion only and not directed at the issue under investigation) |
I know this is simplistic, but I have a massive issue with an RPT jet in an 'emergency' situation with no structural/systems etc issues or unlawful interference. Avianca anyone?
|
What do you mean Hempy?
|
I know this is simplistic, but I have a massive issue with an RPT jet in an 'emergency' situation with no structural/systems etc issues or unlawful interference. Avianca anyone? :ok: |
Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
That is a disingenuous question, but I will answer 'Yes'. If an aircraft has a genuine emergency because of something that couldn't be avoided by any practical means then it is, by definition, unavoidable. There is no possible excuse for running out of fuel....
|
Hempy, may help if you put yourself on the other side of the fence. Can't always takeoff with full fuel tanks.
Last night, pilot report from departing aircraft, fog's rolling in. Checked the TAF, CAVOK, checked the METAR, 9999 but with all the conditions that would indicate fog. After a report to MET, 2 minutes later a TAF comes out with fog. Same night, TAF AMD issued for an aerodrome @ 1000 predicting fog @ 1100, 2 aircraft airborne airworking some distance away were informed. A phone call received at the front desk from the base around 1015 saying 'tell the aircraft the fog is at the aerodrome NOW' I'm a little educated in the James Reason model of accident causation, not formally, but **** happens. A lot of drivers are placed in very serious situations due to a lack of infrastructure. Funny, airports seem to find the money for retail & car parks etc but when it comes to real infrastructure we are a pathetic joke. If there's no excuse for running out of fuel, & 'excuse' is a very poor choice of word, how are aircraft placed in the situation where they have legal fuel loads and have very limited options when he above happens? |
the benchmark will not purely be the was it legal. The only way to circumvent an occurrence like this again would be to require all IFR aircraft to carry a VFR alternate for every destination. As for the autoland, don't aircrew practice flying an ILS all the way to a landing any more. We used practice it back in the 80s, just in case. |
Short & curly of it, is the crews (QF & VA) both had good outcomes given the information provided.
The thing that irritates me, and many of my colleagues is that it's 2013 and here we are with a met service that 'appears' to give semi accurate forecasts. I'm sure they are doing the best with the infrastructure they have....I don't know. But it's bull5hit. Just remember folks....fuel tanks, not air tanks. Stuff the bean counters if you have a hunch...and remember 4 is the new 3. :D |
Why hold overhead MIA for over an hour before losing options?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.