PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Fragrant Harbour (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour-19/)
-   -   Fuel Q (https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/514058-fuel-q.html)

Barronflyer 5th May 2013 04:11

Fuel Q
 
Just a quick question for the boffins

Had a rather large ZFW drop on the last LH and made the appropriate corrections. (Another CFP was out of the question)

I was wondering if after the correction our CRIT PT fuel serves we're still intact? Is this always the case if I apply the right correction or can we be left short?

Cheers

BuzzBox 5th May 2013 04:23

The answer is yes, the required fuel reserves will always be intact, even if the corrected fuel required drops below the figure shown on the depress ERA analysis on the CFP.

The Line Ops page on the Flight Crew part of IntraCX (under 'Guidelines & Policies') has the answer to this and many other questions.

China Flyer 5th May 2013 04:38

Buzzy is right, although actually working out your new crit point fuels is a bit trickier.

Barronflyer 5th May 2013 04:43

Many thanks indeed for the answers.....any gen then on where I could find the CP correction to fuel?

SloppyJoe 5th May 2013 07:15

Upon recalculation of the fuel after a ZFW drop your crit points are still good.

If after dispatch you are going to be less than required at the crit point after doing your own calculation are you going to divert or keep going?

Once in the air surely it does not really matter, you do what is required and often the airports used in the calculations are totally crazy. Who cares if you have fuel to fly over two suitable airports on the way to your crit point ERA after a depress.

If its good at the planning stage then really thats all you need.

Bet your an Aussie :-)

Liam Gallagher 5th May 2013 08:15

Although FLt Ops say the CFP corrections are good for Mandatory fuel, a few years back had a large 0FW drop and did the correction and established a new Final Req'd. Dispatch ran a new plan and the new plan had 300kgs more as Fuel Req'd. We were probably OK because of the 5% extra built into the mandatory, but I am now cautious about using the corrections on large 0FW drops on long sectors.

Sloppy Joe, as for what to do after airborne, I think you need to talk to a training god. Perhaps also ask him about the difference between "your" and "you're" :}

crwkunt roll 5th May 2013 08:41

"I WILL IF YOU WILL"........
I'll adjust the CFP fuel for a ZFW drop, if you stop crying poor and give us a 30% pay rise just as you've given yourself.

SloppyJoe 5th May 2013 15:15

And perhaps you should have a think about what does and does not require a capital letter.

Grammar, the difference between knowing your **** and knowing you're ****.

cxorcist 5th May 2013 16:10

Threads like these prove what a bunch of wankers we have at CX. You guys would rather haggle over a few hundred kilograms of fuel and grammar than discuss real issues like SHP. We surely make the third floor's job easy by putting our effort into the dumbest topics. What would you like to discuss next? My favorite color?

DropKnee 5th May 2013 20:38

My favorite color is, Ocean Blue.
What's yours?

ANCPER 7th May 2013 12:03

JIZZim Monkey
 
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

Yeager 8th May 2013 05:49

w@nky, w@nky, w@nky..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******

bellcrank88 8th May 2013 15:07

To Answer the Question
 
A very good approximation of the new CP fuel required is found by taking a ration ratio of the new CFP total fuel/Old CFP total fuel and multiply this by the old CP fuel. This will be within a couple hundred kilos. Use the same mandatory if you had it as the change in it will be very small. You can use the same ratio to find what the fuel required at each point is. We used to use this all the time before the days of the FMC.

You can always then ask for a new cfp enroute to backup your math.

(some w@nker will probably point out that a better ratio can be found by leaving the contingency fuel out of the equation, and they would be correct, but the difference is negligible)

PatObrien 8th May 2013 23:11

I'd like to point out that better ratio can be found by leaving the contingency fuel out of the equation.

Yeager 9th May 2013 06:00

I'd like to point out that better ratio can be found by leaving the contingency fuel out of the equation.

BuzzBox 9th May 2013 09:09

Hmmm, there must be a village missing some of its brethren.

channis 9th May 2013 09:40

I'd like to point out that better ratio can be found by leaving the contingency fuel out of the equation. (but the difference is negligible.) And i am friends with that w@nker...

raven11 9th May 2013 11:55

Don't use the old and final CFP fuel in the equation. Instead, divide the new burn off figure by the old burn off figure and then use this value to multiply against any fuel figure on the CFP to get the updated fuel burn off.


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:33.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.