round trip fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
round trip fuel
hi guys ,
my qustion is what the best way to make round trip fuel fro an airline aircraft ? what shuold i consder .
lets say A & B destination
am doing full flight plan for the way back from B to A then i take the required fuel + trip fuel + taxi + approach = round trip fuel
any one have other idea
my qustion is what the best way to make round trip fuel fro an airline aircraft ? what shuold i consder .
lets say A & B destination
am doing full flight plan for the way back from B to A then i take the required fuel + trip fuel + taxi + approach = round trip fuel
any one have other idea
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North America
Age: 64
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much info & lots of variables
A to B fuel, Alternate required? B to alternate fuel plus regulatory dispatch requirements 45 minutes fuel, taxi fuel, anticipated holding (?) fuel. Transoceanic ?? different requirements. Land and taxi in or divert back to B? Fuel burn back to B + 45 minute reserve. All this is minimum: what's the weather like? Any mechanical condition on the jet requiring "extra" fuel? Lots of variables?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One big catch is not being too 'accurate' with the calculations - if you finish up having to uplift, say, 300kg at destination to give you sufficient due to a hold or other extra burn en route, you MAY pay heavily for that uplift - eg some fuel companies have a minimum uplift of 1000kg or a 'call-out charge' for small uplifts. Tankering to MLM is also interesting and needs care to avoid waste.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear northbeach
a'm using jet plan it'll consder what u just mention alt,extra etc. it's self and these requried in basic flight planing , so my question it's simple.
thanks for ur help all of you
a'm using jet plan it'll consder what u just mention alt,extra etc. it's self and these requried in basic flight planing , so my question it's simple.
thanks for ur help all of you
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure I understand your question.
You want round trip fuel? A round trip flies to a destination and returns to the point of origin. You want fuel both ways, or one way?
For trip fuel, you're going to need to know if you need a takeoff alternate, and consider fuel for that; the nature of the fuel required depends what you're flying, and where. You'll need your enroute fuel...but this depends also on where you're flying, and under what regulations. Just the fuel burn from A to B isn't sufficient. You may require an enroute burn addition. We use 10% extra on the enroute fuel. If any diversions enroute or possible diversions, such as enroute equal time point alternates are required, these may have independent fuel requirements due to location and distance, plus their own holding requirements to consider independent of other fuel needs. Your destination may or may not require an alternate. If it does, then you have fuel to the most distant alternate, plus another 30-45 minutes, depending on the regulations under which you're operating.
Additional to these requirements, if you have known delays, or typical delays at busy terminal locations where holding might be required, adding additional fuel for the holding is also wise.
Taxi fuel depends on the location. We typically plan on 3,000 lbs for taxi, but I've seen it go considerably more. If you're going to be doing a turnaround after taxi and running your APU, you have to consider fuel for that, too, as well as the time involved in the turn-around when considering the APU fuel useage.
If you carry additional fuel, you're going to incur a fuel burn penalty. Therefore, while you can carry the fuel to go to the destination, turn around, and come back, you're going to burn extra fuel per hour just to carry the weight of the fuel. Typically about 5% or so increase in fuel burn. Depending on your leg length, your fuel burn may be signficant enough that there is little point or purpose in carrying the return fuel. If you carry 50,000 extra pounds of fuel, but burn 25,000 lbs of it just to carry it...what's the point?
I realize you stated your question is very simple...but it's not. Considerably more information is needed.
You want round trip fuel? A round trip flies to a destination and returns to the point of origin. You want fuel both ways, or one way?
For trip fuel, you're going to need to know if you need a takeoff alternate, and consider fuel for that; the nature of the fuel required depends what you're flying, and where. You'll need your enroute fuel...but this depends also on where you're flying, and under what regulations. Just the fuel burn from A to B isn't sufficient. You may require an enroute burn addition. We use 10% extra on the enroute fuel. If any diversions enroute or possible diversions, such as enroute equal time point alternates are required, these may have independent fuel requirements due to location and distance, plus their own holding requirements to consider independent of other fuel needs. Your destination may or may not require an alternate. If it does, then you have fuel to the most distant alternate, plus another 30-45 minutes, depending on the regulations under which you're operating.
Additional to these requirements, if you have known delays, or typical delays at busy terminal locations where holding might be required, adding additional fuel for the holding is also wise.
Taxi fuel depends on the location. We typically plan on 3,000 lbs for taxi, but I've seen it go considerably more. If you're going to be doing a turnaround after taxi and running your APU, you have to consider fuel for that, too, as well as the time involved in the turn-around when considering the APU fuel useage.
If you carry additional fuel, you're going to incur a fuel burn penalty. Therefore, while you can carry the fuel to go to the destination, turn around, and come back, you're going to burn extra fuel per hour just to carry the weight of the fuel. Typically about 5% or so increase in fuel burn. Depending on your leg length, your fuel burn may be signficant enough that there is little point or purpose in carrying the return fuel. If you carry 50,000 extra pounds of fuel, but burn 25,000 lbs of it just to carry it...what's the point?
I realize you stated your question is very simple...but it's not. Considerably more information is needed.
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy, I see you are in the USA. There are considerable cost advantages in tankering fuel in Europe, to the extent of carrying 'round trip fuel' to many destinations. As you say, lugging the stuff around incurs quite a fuel burn penalty, and unless there is a huge disparity in fuel price, it becomes uneconomic beyond a certain distance. Another factor is an altered FMC cost-index for the return sector, because the fuel is now more 'valuable' by virtue of carrying it there.
BOAC is right about making too fine a calculation, and leaving yourself with too small uplift for the return sector, as far as the refuelling company is concerned.
The other way you can 'snooker' yourself is to arrive with full wing tanks at a humid destination and watch as a thick layer of rime ice forms on top of the wings during the turnround. There will, of course, be no airframe de-icing equipment at the said airfield!
BOAC is right about making too fine a calculation, and leaving yourself with too small uplift for the return sector, as far as the refuelling company is concerned.
The other way you can 'snooker' yourself is to arrive with full wing tanks at a humid destination and watch as a thick layer of rime ice forms on top of the wings during the turnround. There will, of course, be no airframe de-icing equipment at the said airfield!
Last edited by Georgeablelovehowindia; 20th Dec 2008 at 18:41.
Simplest way is to try to make an accurate assessment of the required 'fuel in tanks' at the start of the return sector and then add the expected trip and taxy fuel for the outward sector. Then add a further sensible 'fudge factor' to avoid small uplift down route, as previously described.
You will also have to check RTOW, RLW and icing issues.
On a different tack, Georgeablelovehowindia, I'm curious as to why you are named after a Canadair C4 Argonaut?
You will also have to check RTOW, RLW and icing issues.
On a different tack, Georgeablelovehowindia, I'm curious as to why you are named after a Canadair C4 Argonaut?
I concur with eckhard, that is exactly the method we use. On our tankering routes we are provided with the flight plan for the return sector, and the outbound flight plan has figures for the extra fuel burn due to the extra weight carried. So it is possible to make an accurate stab at how much fuel you'll need. Having said that, mistakes do sometimes occur and I recall approaching LHR a bit too heavy one day. We were going to ask for a couple of times round the Lambourne hold to ensure we were below MLW at touchdown but luckily, it was one of those days when that happened anyway.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a bit of a disagreement with Ops once on the question of 'round trip fuel'
My version was the full return requirement as per flight plan plus the outbound burn plus the outbound contingency. "No", they said, "You don't need to carry the outbound contingency". I insisted and they insisted that I show it as additional fuel uplifted at my request.
Got airborne, planned at FL370 SIN-HKG-SIN, with fuelling problems in HKG.
Highest level achieved was FL270 and by the TOD we had burnt the two tons contingency that I insisted on loading, (B744).
I still maintain that round trip fuel is: Total inbound requirement including all reserves and diversion fuel etc. plus outbound burn plus outbound contingency.
My version was the full return requirement as per flight plan plus the outbound burn plus the outbound contingency. "No", they said, "You don't need to carry the outbound contingency". I insisted and they insisted that I show it as additional fuel uplifted at my request.
Got airborne, planned at FL370 SIN-HKG-SIN, with fuelling problems in HKG.
Highest level achieved was FL270 and by the TOD we had burnt the two tons contingency that I insisted on loading, (B744).
I still maintain that round trip fuel is: Total inbound requirement including all reserves and diversion fuel etc. plus outbound burn plus outbound contingency.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 50/50 on the OPS position - if the cont is 2T you could get away with a top up at destination without penalty, I guess, so maybe on your a/c they had a case? If it was 737 sized I would probably generally plan for a 1000kg underload with cont remaining to ensure 'no penalty' on uplift if there was any doubt about achieving levels/route etc unless there was no fuelling at dest, in which case I would include cont in the trip fuel (and probably a bit more
).
Whatever you do, the chances are that you will often carry MORE than you need.
).Whatever you do, the chances are that you will often carry MORE than you need.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly HKG had a serious supply and/or contamination problem and any airline able to load round-trip fuel should do so.
Personally I see outbound contingency as a 'must' anyway to satisfy the requirement of 'round trip fuel'.
Good job we are all individuals and give thought to what we do rather than just slavishly follow instructions
Personally I see outbound contingency as a 'must' anyway to satisfy the requirement of 'round trip fuel'.
Good job we are all individuals and give thought to what we do rather than just slavishly follow instructions
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy, I see you are in the USA. There are considerable cost advantages in tankering fuel in Europe, to the extent of carrying 'round trip fuel' to many destinations.
We generally find that tankering the minimum amount of fuel is to our advantage; over the course of a trip of any significant length, the amount burned by tankering quickly hits the point of diminishing returns and anything saved by fuel price differences is rapidly consumed in burn...even in, and especially in europe.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SN3
over the course of a trip of any significant length,
