Fuel Tankering BD700
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel tankering
The standard formula for ALL aircraft is that excess fuel (or any excess weight) that you carry will be burnt at 4% per hour of that excess weight. So If you carry 5,000 Lbs excess over flight plan fuel over a 6 hour sector you will burn 24% (1,200 lbs) just carrying it. That is 680 litres at UK prices of 65p = £442. Work our how much that costs over a year. That is why all airlines carry minimum fuel most of the time. I have noticed a lot of GA pilots do not like taking minimum fuel but it is an expensive option not to!
We as a company always reduce contingency from 5% to that required from a close en route alternate as per Eu OPs. Crews very happy to do this as their annual bonus goes up with the extra profit we make! This policy does not alter the Captains' right to carry what ever fuel he thinks is appropriate.
The 4% may not be completely accurate for all aircraft but good enough.
We as a company always reduce contingency from 5% to that required from a close en route alternate as per Eu OPs. Crews very happy to do this as their annual bonus goes up with the extra profit we make! This policy does not alter the Captains' right to carry what ever fuel he thinks is appropriate.
The 4% may not be completely accurate for all aircraft but good enough.
I suspect 4% is a bit generous on the fuel burn side; 3% is what we used in the airlines and US military (heavy airlift). Yes, most corp operators do not seem to worry about it, but for long haul routes, extra fuel is expensive. And most pilots with only short range time are surprised at how little of the fuel they boarded is there 12 hours later.
GF
GF
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excess fuel
Yes somewhere between 3% and 4% is correct. However if excess fuel is carried crews tend to waste the excess by not flying efficiently so the 3% becomes 6%. Eu Ops (JAR Ops) allows crew to land with really low fuel figures and stay legal. It is fine if the company has a robust fuel monotoring policy and not just rely on on board computers. (A330 out of fuel on the Atlantic comes to mind)
We regularly fly 6 hour + sectors on our Hawkers which means landing with 1000 lbs of fuel. This is fine and legal if the destination is good wx and close alternates. This is about 50 minutes of fuel. A lot of crews are initially wary of this. If so I ask them if they would be prepared to put 50 minutes of fuel in a cessna 150 and do a circuit and all say they would be happy to do that. I then point out that how come they are happy to TAKE OFF with 50 mins of fuel but not LAND with that amount!!
It all comes down to the fact that some crews worry that the 50 minutes of planned arrival fuel will somehow disappear during the flight. As long as crews know their aircraft, power settings and fuel flows the 50 minutes always stays on board as long as a good flight plan system has been used (Jet Plan is brilliant and accurate to 1%). The trick is to convert that 50 minutes into 60 or 70!! It makes a 6 hour sector slip away and for those who are prepared to take the effort it makes the difference between a pilot and a professional.
On another note, my company does not allow "refuelling on the guages" but on known arrival fuel plus uplift. This is also new to a lot of pilot, but I have not run out of fuel yet!
We regularly fly 6 hour + sectors on our Hawkers which means landing with 1000 lbs of fuel. This is fine and legal if the destination is good wx and close alternates. This is about 50 minutes of fuel. A lot of crews are initially wary of this. If so I ask them if they would be prepared to put 50 minutes of fuel in a cessna 150 and do a circuit and all say they would be happy to do that. I then point out that how come they are happy to TAKE OFF with 50 mins of fuel but not LAND with that amount!!
It all comes down to the fact that some crews worry that the 50 minutes of planned arrival fuel will somehow disappear during the flight. As long as crews know their aircraft, power settings and fuel flows the 50 minutes always stays on board as long as a good flight plan system has been used (Jet Plan is brilliant and accurate to 1%). The trick is to convert that 50 minutes into 60 or 70!! It makes a 6 hour sector slip away and for those who are prepared to take the effort it makes the difference between a pilot and a professional.
On another note, my company does not allow "refuelling on the guages" but on known arrival fuel plus uplift. This is also new to a lot of pilot, but I have not run out of fuel yet!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why all airlines carry minimum fuel most of the time
Mutt
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy to tanker when it is a cost consideration but that is getting rarer as the cost differential seems to be getting less around the world. You must have access to really cheap fuel ex base.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OFFSHORE
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We tanker when we get the right price difference.
Europe is a classic. between Italy and France it can be upto $2 a gal.
and when we take 15000lts it makes a difference no matter how much you burn to carry it.
just my 2 cents worth or is that 20 cents now!!
GL
Europe is a classic. between Italy and France it can be upto $2 a gal.
and when we take 15000lts it makes a difference no matter how much you burn to carry it.
just my 2 cents worth or is that 20 cents now!!
GL
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker750, bunkering costs, of course. But our owners value our making difficult multi-leg days happen with no hitches. So much so, in fact, that cost takes on a very subordinate aspect. If we were on a tight turnaround at rush-hour in Nice, for example, or Vnukovo, and were unable to uplift fuel we'd have painted ourselves into a corner. Takeoff delayed. Boss angry.
You'll agree that the degree of unpredictability of the operation can have a substantial influence. Scheduled carriers generally have good access to fuel. All here will agree that we usually are at the very end of the refuellers' list of priorities. The refueller used to Lears will regularly have to amble off in search of another full bowser when refuelling an empty Glex about to go far, takeoff delayed. Boss angry.
Dropping into outer Uztbekiszvalgorshkstan on that first-time-anybodies'-ever-even-heard-of-it you have your hands full sourcing info about the place, checking permissions, finding a navigator, obtaining updated charts, checking loadbearing capability of the surface, catering, de-icing availability, confirming that the alternates are viable, checking FTR limits, ascertaining performance, finding HOTAC, etcblabla, as you know. Even when operations have received gold-embossed guarantees of immediate fuel-availability on arrival this fuel may not materialise because the mongolian moose that hauls the wooden fuel-barrel is down with the clap, or whatever. Panic-stricken running up of mobile-phones' bill ensues, takeoff delayed. Boss angry.
We bunker a lot of the time. Boss happy.
Ochac, how's life? Doodlebuglet sends her regards!
You'll agree that the degree of unpredictability of the operation can have a substantial influence. Scheduled carriers generally have good access to fuel. All here will agree that we usually are at the very end of the refuellers' list of priorities. The refueller used to Lears will regularly have to amble off in search of another full bowser when refuelling an empty Glex about to go far, takeoff delayed. Boss angry.
Dropping into outer Uztbekiszvalgorshkstan on that first-time-anybodies'-ever-even-heard-of-it you have your hands full sourcing info about the place, checking permissions, finding a navigator, obtaining updated charts, checking loadbearing capability of the surface, catering, de-icing availability, confirming that the alternates are viable, checking FTR limits, ascertaining performance, finding HOTAC, etcblabla, as you know. Even when operations have received gold-embossed guarantees of immediate fuel-availability on arrival this fuel may not materialise because the mongolian moose that hauls the wooden fuel-barrel is down with the clap, or whatever. Panic-stricken running up of mobile-phones' bill ensues, takeoff delayed. Boss angry.
We bunker a lot of the time. Boss happy.
Ochac, how's life? Doodlebuglet sends her regards!
Last edited by Doodlebug; 17th Aug 2008 at 22:45. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DoodlebugSounds like you nerd a first rate OPs department to give you a helping hand!All of what you say is very relevant but we are charter where the profit margin is about 5% so the costs of tankering are quite significant unless there are specificic reasons, and Nice is certainly one of them!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, Hawker, charter is an entirely different kettle of fish. A lot of competition around and you need to have your ducks in a row to show a profit.
Nope, the mob is a first-rate bunch but we check as much as we can ourselves. Murphy lurks...
Nope, the mob is a first-rate bunch but we check as much as we can ourselves. Murphy lurks...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExjetYou may be using equivalnt fuel flows to get 2% and accepting a few minutes longer per sector. If you upped the FF to get the same flight time I suspect the cost would be 3% or more. Accepting the higher flight time of course opens a new pandora's box of having to factor in the cost of time on engines MX, crew duty etc.
