QTR fuel management and ATC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QTR fuel management and ATC
SCENARIO 1
A ‘Bunch’ of QTR arrivals (B777, A333 and A320’s) from DETKO that need streaming to hand off to Doha at SESNA 10nm+ in trail
To make this work with as little delay to the overall sequence... the A320 in front needs to help us out..
When instructed to track direct SESNA and increase from 74 to 79 for sequencing..... number one ...
The reply was ‘unable to increase speed due fuel management’ or words to that effect.
CONSEQUENCE
Number 2, the A330 was slowed back to 76,
Number 3 the B777 was vectored 20deg right and slowed to 78,
Number 4 another A330 was turned 30deg and slowed to 76...
The tail end A320 out of Kuwait flew the trip at 73-74 (which probably suited the cabin service)
SCENARIO 2
QTR arrivals again but with a mix or arrivals from the west to sequence with the DETKO traffic...
In the interests of as little delay as possible to the sequence an A320 from the west is told to turn 20deg left for sequencing..... number four
The response was ... ‘unable to take a turn due to fuel.....’
CONSEQUENCE
B777 from the north slowed from 81 to 77 and vectored 40deg right for 80nm to make number 4
The uncooperative A320 had to be shortcut to make number 3
SCENARIO 3
A320 (again) was shortcut to SESNA and instructed to fly 79 to stay ahead of an A330 which was slowed to 79
The pilot read back instruction as given
As the situation was developing it was obvious that something was amiss as rather than the 7nm gap increasing they were getting closer.
MODE S indicated the A320 was still flying at 76 even though the instruction to increase was acknowledged
CONSEQUENCE
The A330 was slowed to 76 and vectored 20deg
Some rushed coordination with the busy Doha controller followed as it was obvious they would receive these flights with less than the agreed distance and number 2 would be high (penetrating another sector requiring further coordination).
QUESTIONS
How much of a saving in fuel burn is there at F330 doing 74 compared to 78-80 for 120 miles??
How much of a penalty is it to the various aircraft behind when they fly extra track miles at reduced speed?
Are there many pilots out there who consider it acceptable to wilfully ignore ATC instructions and then fail to advise this to ATC?
Are you QTR crews paid a fuel bonus?
Do you plan your fuel use that close to limits as a matter of policy or is it just one or two crews pissing us around?
A ‘Bunch’ of QTR arrivals (B777, A333 and A320’s) from DETKO that need streaming to hand off to Doha at SESNA 10nm+ in trail
To make this work with as little delay to the overall sequence... the A320 in front needs to help us out..
When instructed to track direct SESNA and increase from 74 to 79 for sequencing..... number one ...
The reply was ‘unable to increase speed due fuel management’ or words to that effect.
CONSEQUENCE
Number 2, the A330 was slowed back to 76,
Number 3 the B777 was vectored 20deg right and slowed to 78,
Number 4 another A330 was turned 30deg and slowed to 76...
The tail end A320 out of Kuwait flew the trip at 73-74 (which probably suited the cabin service)
SCENARIO 2
QTR arrivals again but with a mix or arrivals from the west to sequence with the DETKO traffic...
In the interests of as little delay as possible to the sequence an A320 from the west is told to turn 20deg left for sequencing..... number four
The response was ... ‘unable to take a turn due to fuel.....’
CONSEQUENCE
B777 from the north slowed from 81 to 77 and vectored 40deg right for 80nm to make number 4
The uncooperative A320 had to be shortcut to make number 3
SCENARIO 3
A320 (again) was shortcut to SESNA and instructed to fly 79 to stay ahead of an A330 which was slowed to 79
The pilot read back instruction as given
As the situation was developing it was obvious that something was amiss as rather than the 7nm gap increasing they were getting closer.
MODE S indicated the A320 was still flying at 76 even though the instruction to increase was acknowledged
CONSEQUENCE
The A330 was slowed to 76 and vectored 20deg
Some rushed coordination with the busy Doha controller followed as it was obvious they would receive these flights with less than the agreed distance and number 2 would be high (penetrating another sector requiring further coordination).
QUESTIONS
How much of a saving in fuel burn is there at F330 doing 74 compared to 78-80 for 120 miles??
How much of a penalty is it to the various aircraft behind when they fly extra track miles at reduced speed?
Are there many pilots out there who consider it acceptable to wilfully ignore ATC instructions and then fail to advise this to ATC?
Are you QTR crews paid a fuel bonus?
Do you plan your fuel use that close to limits as a matter of policy or is it just one or two crews pissing us around?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think by now you sould've gotten the message:
Do not give the priority to a slower/smaller aircraft. On the 777 most people would gladly give you .85/330kts in no turb conditions. And on top of this 777 is usually at a lower level.
I do not pretend I know anything about the ATC job, but from a pilot's point of view some of the delay actions seem rather strange, to put it mildly.
Hope to suffer less of these "reduse to .78" nonsense!
Cheers!
Do not give the priority to a slower/smaller aircraft. On the 777 most people would gladly give you .85/330kts in no turb conditions. And on top of this 777 is usually at a lower level.
I do not pretend I know anything about the ATC job, but from a pilot's point of view some of the delay actions seem rather strange, to put it mildly.
Hope to suffer less of these "reduse to .78" nonsense!
Cheers!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are doing it wrong.
"Increase to 79 direct SESNA"
"unable due fuel management"
"Roger, hold at NANSU, left hand pattern, inbound on present heading, 2 minute legs. Expect one pattern"."
If the comeback is "cannot hold due fuel"
"Roger, descend to FL230" and co-ord that.
You can't have EVERYONE doing the speed they want, direct to the field. If QR want to run their 320s with minimum fuel and requiring no delay, they should pass that information on and allow for the extra delays on the other fleets.
"Increase to 79 direct SESNA"
"unable due fuel management"
"Roger, hold at NANSU, left hand pattern, inbound on present heading, 2 minute legs. Expect one pattern"."
If the comeback is "cannot hold due fuel"
"Roger, descend to FL230" and co-ord that.
You can't have EVERYONE doing the speed they want, direct to the field. If QR want to run their 320s with minimum fuel and requiring no delay, they should pass that information on and allow for the extra delays on the other fleets.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: any given hotel
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always thought ATC was under no obligation to give priority to an aircraft unless the aircraft declared Mayday. Therefore reply to said 320 is "do you have a fuel problem and would like to declare a Mayday?"
Last edited by Ingwe; 23rd Aug 2012 at 11:28.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Asia
Age: 49
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we've been advised on writing to increase to at least 78 or greater though the Bahrain sector even if we come from a slower flight plan fuel strategy.
there a lot of monkeys here.
out of curiosity, is it not possible, feasible or practiced to have a fast aircraft behind, descend thru my level and speed past me while i fly slowly or on divergent heading?
thanks
there a lot of monkeys here.
out of curiosity, is it not possible, feasible or practiced to have a fast aircraft behind, descend thru my level and speed past me while i fly slowly or on divergent heading?
thanks
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Flight Deck
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris got it spot on.
Why should ATC worry about fuel policy of airlines. Do what it takes to move the traffic expeditedly. If a guy is tight on fuel let him declare a fuel emergency and get priority. Having said all this .. kudos to you man for making an attempt to know what works for airlines and trying to understand the wierd ass system.
Why should ATC worry about fuel policy of airlines. Do what it takes to move the traffic expeditedly. If a guy is tight on fuel let him declare a fuel emergency and get priority. Having said all this .. kudos to you man for making an attempt to know what works for airlines and trying to understand the wierd ass system.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: no fixed abode
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zkpjm......I feel for you buddy. I really do. We get the same a**holes flying through UAE. 
To be honest, this is going to be a major headache for Controllers as we try to do our VERY best with as LITTLE airspace as possible. Its unfortunate that a sizeable minority of pilots have no concept of the traffic situation they are a part of. Not to mind that, but the fact that they should realise by now that the companies they work for are the fastest growing in the world and are part of a very complicated and complex airways system in the Middle East. I've challenged pilots before about these nuisance requests. I'm not really concerned about your fuel problem until you call a MAYDAY. Until then, you'll fit where I put you! We're mostly all professionals here that infortunately, and not through our own fault, have little regard for one anothers work environment. But that's another days work.
We understand that fuel management can be a problem for pilots as they continue to be bombarded with unreasonable fuel policies from their airlines. But, again, I'm not really that concerned. There is a perfectly good reason for a speed restriction or vector. We're not doing it for the fun of it.
To answer the question on a B777 following an A320. Yes, sometimes we do. It depends entirely on distance, height, groundspeed.
Don't be surprised the next time you fail to follow an ATC instruction (for yours and others safety) that a report will be filed and expect a call and few nasty questions from your chief pilot.
Really annoyed with some of the carry on in this region. Those pilots wouldn't dare try pulling stunts like that flying into Heathrow, Frankfurt or New York. You'd be sent packing!!
To be honest, this is going to be a major headache for Controllers as we try to do our VERY best with as LITTLE airspace as possible. Its unfortunate that a sizeable minority of pilots have no concept of the traffic situation they are a part of. Not to mind that, but the fact that they should realise by now that the companies they work for are the fastest growing in the world and are part of a very complicated and complex airways system in the Middle East. I've challenged pilots before about these nuisance requests. I'm not really concerned about your fuel problem until you call a MAYDAY. Until then, you'll fit where I put you! We're mostly all professionals here that infortunately, and not through our own fault, have little regard for one anothers work environment. But that's another days work.
We understand that fuel management can be a problem for pilots as they continue to be bombarded with unreasonable fuel policies from their airlines. But, again, I'm not really that concerned. There is a perfectly good reason for a speed restriction or vector. We're not doing it for the fun of it.
To answer the question on a B777 following an A320. Yes, sometimes we do. It depends entirely on distance, height, groundspeed.
Don't be surprised the next time you fail to follow an ATC instruction (for yours and others safety) that a report will be filed and expect a call and few nasty questions from your chief pilot.
Really annoyed with some of the carry on in this region. Those pilots wouldn't dare try pulling stunts like that flying into Heathrow, Frankfurt or New York. You'd be sent packing!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
out of curiosity, is it not possible, feasible or practiced to have a fast aircraft behind, descend thru my level and speed past me while i fly slowly or on divergent heading?
Not only that, ALL THE OTHER inbounds have to be worked in- you are rarely looking at just a "pair".
What would actually be efficient is if we had an over-arching "MEcontrol", such as Eurocontrol. At the very least, someone looking at whether Doha was going to hold them, thereby negating any sequencing being done by Bahrain, UAE etc. Let them steam on into the hold at whatever speed they wanted, just setting up holding instead of in-trail.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near water
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very simple. Dump him into an en-route hold and leave him there until everybody has gone past or he extracts himself with a Pan or Mayday. Rinse and repeat a few times and the message will sink in.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not give the priority to a slower/smaller aircraft.
My airplane is pretty slow for a jet. I always cringe when ATC puts a 757 behind me for departure when we're going in the same direction. I'm happy to slow down, or take a 60 degree turn so that faster traffic can pass. I'm paid by the minute, I really don't mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris, Yes maybe I am doing it 'wrong' trying to manage traffic according to the basic tenet of ATC... Safe, Orderly and Expeditious and you suggest some valid options.
Homo Ludens, I got the message a long time ago when I found that the general standard of airmanship in this region is poor to say the least.... Non compliance with level and speed restrictions, poor flight planning and/or non adherence to route clearances, failing to monitor the frequency... all those things that make this such a fun place to work!! Perhaps one of those nonsense speed restrictions was due to the traffic ahead of you failing to ‘play the game’
MD83FO interesting ... Can I quote you if I ever have to remind one of your crews on the air?
Ingwe and others, it’s not about giving priority to any particular aircraft... My consideration is the FLOW of traffic in an orderly and efficient manner... over the whole sequence/hour/day
I am genuinely interested in the economics....hence my questions
How much of a saving in fuel burn is there at F330 doing 74 compared to 78-80 for 120 miles??
How much of a penalty is it to the various aircraft behind when they fly extra track miles at reduced speed?
And how significant is the difference in fuel burn at F330 at 74 compared to 78 in an A320?? 50kg, 100kg????
Is there a saving or a cost in fuel burn if the A320 is at 74 F230???
There must be a techie type pilot here who can provide figures
Homo Ludens, I got the message a long time ago when I found that the general standard of airmanship in this region is poor to say the least.... Non compliance with level and speed restrictions, poor flight planning and/or non adherence to route clearances, failing to monitor the frequency... all those things that make this such a fun place to work!! Perhaps one of those nonsense speed restrictions was due to the traffic ahead of you failing to ‘play the game’
MD83FO interesting ... Can I quote you if I ever have to remind one of your crews on the air?
Ingwe and others, it’s not about giving priority to any particular aircraft... My consideration is the FLOW of traffic in an orderly and efficient manner... over the whole sequence/hour/day
I am genuinely interested in the economics....hence my questions
How much of a saving in fuel burn is there at F330 doing 74 compared to 78-80 for 120 miles??
How much of a penalty is it to the various aircraft behind when they fly extra track miles at reduced speed?
And how significant is the difference in fuel burn at F330 at 74 compared to 78 in an A320?? 50kg, 100kg????
Is there a saving or a cost in fuel burn if the A320 is at 74 F230???
There must be a techie type pilot here who can provide figures
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vulcan
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zkpjm
Thank you for attempting to seek a reasonable solution. You present some great questions most would assist you in a reasonable area of operations but you face an uphill battle.
QTR operates on a fear-base culture, this fear culture creates anxiety in every choice made by every employees all levels. The fear culture pushes some pilots to stop thinking and to do only as they are told.
Like most other airlines QTR does have a fuel management policy, the policy does not impose a penalty for taking extra (with-in reason) fuel. The fuel policy looks at many aspects of the operation, but like the book world it does not fully apply to the real world. This is where airmanship should appear but is stifled by prevailing corporate culture.
Seeing crews cannot change policy or culture, a letter from ATC to upper management in DOH describing the consequences of the current policy accompanied with some suggestions would be helpful to all. With the hope that ATC’s message would be heard, if not then the option for holding, vectors and a couple of fuel PAN’s or MAYDAY’s should convey the message.
Although this is not London, Hong Kong, Sydney or New York, air operations in the ME could use improvement. Disregard for ATC instruction should not be tolerated, it only promotes further disregard and makes operations more challenging and less safe for everyone else. The tolerance level could be stepped down a bit at a time beginning with vectors, holding, phone calls and letters for the non-compliant. Failure with consequences is a good teacher.
Thank you for attempting to seek a reasonable solution. You present some great questions most would assist you in a reasonable area of operations but you face an uphill battle.
QTR operates on a fear-base culture, this fear culture creates anxiety in every choice made by every employees all levels. The fear culture pushes some pilots to stop thinking and to do only as they are told.
Like most other airlines QTR does have a fuel management policy, the policy does not impose a penalty for taking extra (with-in reason) fuel. The fuel policy looks at many aspects of the operation, but like the book world it does not fully apply to the real world. This is where airmanship should appear but is stifled by prevailing corporate culture.
Seeing crews cannot change policy or culture, a letter from ATC to upper management in DOH describing the consequences of the current policy accompanied with some suggestions would be helpful to all. With the hope that ATC’s message would be heard, if not then the option for holding, vectors and a couple of fuel PAN’s or MAYDAY’s should convey the message.
Although this is not London, Hong Kong, Sydney or New York, air operations in the ME could use improvement. Disregard for ATC instruction should not be tolerated, it only promotes further disregard and makes operations more challenging and less safe for everyone else. The tolerance level could be stepped down a bit at a time beginning with vectors, holding, phone calls and letters for the non-compliant. Failure with consequences is a good teacher.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Asia
Age: 49
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zkpjm You can quote me, it's on paper and I do follow it.
And in 150 mi at the higher speed you can be using the fuel you saved in that
5 hour flight. We used to fly at 78 but the new flight plans are coming near
75,76. The speed is selected by the computer depending on the time vs fuel cost for that trip as given in the flight plan.
And I have a question for the guys flying airplanes with greater sweepback (777)
Whats the cruising Mack number at cost index zero?
And in 150 mi at the higher speed you can be using the fuel you saved in that
5 hour flight. We used to fly at 78 but the new flight plans are coming near
75,76. The speed is selected by the computer depending on the time vs fuel cost for that trip as given in the flight plan.
And I have a question for the guys flying airplanes with greater sweepback (777)
Whats the cruising Mack number at cost index zero?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: In the desert
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: doha
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
standerd
Its a colective proplem !
ATC : limited airspace single Rw.....sids stars spd ctrl are req....
QR : Occ can chk and piortise arr to doh based on fuel, flt length ,No of pax..
Pilots : Do we Know how OR do we Fly our ac PRO..
1- Des Spd?...Which ac have higher vmo ie spd in trans?....ITS THE A320 !
2-Fuel ..........Which flights Arr with higher cont fuel?...........ANY..it has noting to do with type as per qr fuel plan short sector ie gulf inbound flts to
DOH..are more critical.....eg a B777 BAH- DOH flt has much less fuel than
any other flt....eg IAH -DOH.......But Its
to hold after 15 hrs flt.
3- Some Q need A...I-What is tur.spd and when we use it ?
II-SOP NOP IS It a QURAN....eg Rrecycle S.blt On selction of flaps... even in terminal area storms...eg2.Or on GS std set...
III- Supppper stablisation Alt SOP 1500 ft
SORRY CAP MY COMAND IS SOON I DONT WANT TO BE CALLED TO OFFICE......I seen Ldg flaps req at 3000ft..
All the above is to home it may intersted......YOU HAVE TO BE JOHN GLEEN
or his patch to be heard ESP with the std of ENG like MINE...
Bed time another nite flt
ATC : limited airspace single Rw.....sids stars spd ctrl are req....
QR : Occ can chk and piortise arr to doh based on fuel, flt length ,No of pax..
Pilots : Do we Know how OR do we Fly our ac PRO..
1- Des Spd?...Which ac have higher vmo ie spd in trans?....ITS THE A320 !
2-Fuel ..........Which flights Arr with higher cont fuel?...........ANY..it has noting to do with type as per qr fuel plan short sector ie gulf inbound flts to
DOH..are more critical.....eg a B777 BAH- DOH flt has much less fuel than
any other flt....eg IAH -DOH.......But Its
to hold after 15 hrs flt.3- Some Q need A...I-What is tur.spd and when we use it ?
II-SOP NOP IS It a QURAN....eg Rrecycle S.blt On selction of flaps... even in terminal area storms...eg2.Or on GS std set...
III- Supppper stablisation Alt SOP 1500 ft
SORRY CAP MY COMAND IS SOON I DONT WANT TO BE CALLED TO OFFICE......I seen Ldg flaps req at 3000ft..
All the above is to home it may intersted......YOU HAVE TO BE JOHN GLEEN
or his patch to be heard ESP with the std of ENG like MINE...
Bed time another nite flt
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD83FO
The otherday, a flight to BKK (B777-300ER) from home, CI 28, Mach varied .830/840, yet CI 0 showed minus 25kg for the flight and PLUS 1 minute??? ( a loss of 25kg's, fact on Operational Flight Plan). You can see the loss for a FL below optimul, and obviously FL above is not available as you are too heavy. See the difference weight does by increasing by 1000kg or the savings by decreasing, and at the bottom you can see the fact that Cost Index 0 will cost you 25kg's.
Fuel savings accumulate over time in flight from cutting corners, to getting your correct levels, however, they can be ruined rather quickly with early descents and slow speeds far out, speed 180 for example at 40 track miles run kills what was saved.
The difference in a change of runway from straight in the opposite runway via a downwind is an easy 1000kg.
We cater ahead on a forecast and carry that extra 3% contingency, however, it can be gone in the first couple miles with an incorrect level, extra track miles for departure. There is no guarantee that it will all be there at destination, but we try.
The speed range at altitude sometimes does not allow M.76 in B777, it is below minimum speed and we try maintain minimum speed plus 15 kts as per the book, but no body wants to fly a lower limit. As altitude is decreased, the available speed range thus increases vastly, but so does extra fuel flow. All this is dependent on may factors, specifically weight at the time of the request.
And I have a question for the guys flying airplanes with greater sweepback (777)
Whats the cruising Mack number at cost index zero?
Whats the cruising Mack number at cost index zero?
Fuel savings accumulate over time in flight from cutting corners, to getting your correct levels, however, they can be ruined rather quickly with early descents and slow speeds far out, speed 180 for example at 40 track miles run kills what was saved.
The difference in a change of runway from straight in the opposite runway via a downwind is an easy 1000kg.We cater ahead on a forecast and carry that extra 3% contingency, however, it can be gone in the first couple miles with an incorrect level, extra track miles for departure. There is no guarantee that it will all be there at destination, but we try.
The speed range at altitude sometimes does not allow M.76 in B777, it is below minimum speed and we try maintain minimum speed plus 15 kts as per the book, but no body wants to fly a lower limit. As altitude is decreased, the available speed range thus increases vastly, but so does extra fuel flow. All this is dependent on may factors, specifically weight at the time of the request.
Last edited by Jetjock330; 25th Aug 2012 at 14:45.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: venus
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Development of the airline&traffic (as well as poor planning&coordination:how comes for example the fighter jets always choose the peak time in the morning to do their circuit...)has been well beyond the capacity the actual Doha airport and surrounding airspace can absorb in order to achieve a "fuel efficient traffic flow",and as a direct consequence TONS of fuel are wasted everyday in this airline.
)has been well beyond the capacity the actual Doha airport and surrounding airspace can absorb in order to achieve a "fuel efficient traffic flow",and as a direct consequence TONS of fuel are wasted everyday in this airline.
