Are most airlines requiring fuel uplift calculations by crew
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . and fraud.
Bowser came alongside and connected up, I noted that the gauges were at zero and gave the refueller the shut off amount so that he could dial up the correct number for auto shut off. Normally that was it, he would bring the fuel chit, collect his 20 fags and be gone. This night I noted the fuelling had stopped so went to see, got there in time to see another bowser hooked up and the numbers suggested he had been fuelling some time, not just started!
The story was that bowser #1 had 'run out' so they brought bowser #2 who had just come from the business jet apron. Final uplift, according to the drivers/refuellers was way, way above what it should have been.
An investigation revealed that driver/bowser #2 had fuelled an executive jet and taken cash, come straight to me and tried to get me to pay for the exec jet fuel! driver/bowser #1 was, of course, in cahoots. Cant believe they thought they would get away with it.
Are some of you actually saying that you, as commander of your a/c, will depart from the gate with fare paying passengers on board, without cross checking that the fuel uplift is within tolerance.
I am shocked!
I am shocked!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FUEL RECONCILIATION.
And what happened to the recording in the Tech Log of the Totaliser readings after every sector?
Interesting to compare the actual burn with the CFP figure, a judicious tweak to the homebound figures might avoid an embarassing shortfall if no other reason can be found to account for overconsumption.
Some aircraft bias figures are possibly out of date, but by the time it passes under the noses of the deskpilots it may be too late to avoid that
-puckering moment when one realises that all is not well?
Capt Bloggs, I cede the seat to you!
Interesting to compare the actual burn with the CFP figure, a judicious tweak to the homebound figures might avoid an embarassing shortfall if no other reason can be found to account for overconsumption.
Some aircraft bias figures are possibly out of date, but by the time it passes under the noses of the deskpilots it may be too late to avoid that
-puckering moment when one realises that all is not well?Capt Bloggs, I cede the seat to you!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
Several have said that they do a crosscheck but what exactly does that mean? Does this mean that you are taking your calculator out(or quickly using a formula in your head) and double checking that the uplift in terms of pounds based on before and after fuel guage readings is close to the amount of litres or gallons loaded.
We have a fuel sheet and both those numbers are listed(pounds uplifted based on before and after fuel guage readings along with litres delivered) but I don't see anyone doing some sort of calculation to ensure that they match or are near equivalent. I assume the fuel man does it but I don't know.
Several have said that they do a crosscheck but what exactly does that mean? Does this mean that you are taking your calculator out(or quickly using a formula in your head) and double checking that the uplift in terms of pounds based on before and after fuel guage readings is close to the amount of litres or gallons loaded.
We have a fuel sheet and both those numbers are listed(pounds uplifted based on before and after fuel guage readings along with litres delivered) but I don't see anyone doing some sort of calculation to ensure that they match or are near equivalent. I assume the fuel man does it but I don't know.
Several have said that they do a crosscheck but what exactly does that mean? Does this mean that you are taking your calculator out(or quickly using a formula in your head) and double checking that the uplift in terms of pounds based on before and after fuel guage readings is close to the amount of litres or gallons loaded.
That said, after a crew almost ran out of fuel due to a refuelling stuffup a few years ago, the regulator removed the regulatory need for a 3% check, deferring to the operators to make sure the fuel load was "correct".
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some central America countries, Panama, I was always slightly short on fuel so kept all receipts and went down and monitored the truck readings and recorded our fuel purchases. I took my findings to the chief pilot at Miami and they investigated. They found nothing so guess it was the cost of doing business. Obviously the truck gauges were rigged. What they put on vs what I parked with was always short.
One bowser I have encountered gave the same discrepancy every refuelling. It transpired it was the same as the capacity of the second diesel tank fitted to the vehicle which turned out not to be connected to the engine! I also saw a discrepancy of exactly 1000USG in the Philippines which was corrected immediately without question.
Fraud is endemic in aircraft refuelling.
Fraud is endemic in aircraft refuelling.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MENTAL MATHS AGAIN.
My own stay outa trouble technique, instilled by late great DanAir aeons ago, is to subtract what's left from what we want @ departure, divide by 4, add the result to the expected uplift kg figure, and then add some to the total if it's hot or a low SG fuel supplier.
Only applicable to KGs aircraft guages and LITRES delivery of course.
Can be done in the remains of my brain as I sally forth to examine the 'frame to see what's dropped off, and I impress upon the bowser operator that that litres figure is roughly what I expect to see on the bowser meter.
Subsequent calculator bashing is to keep the carbon trader fraternity happy as, if my gross error is within 3%, then I'm happy to close up and push off homewards.
Simples or not?
Only applicable to KGs aircraft guages and LITRES delivery of course.
Can be done in the remains of my brain as I sally forth to examine the 'frame to see what's dropped off, and I impress upon the bowser operator that that litres figure is roughly what I expect to see on the bowser meter.
Subsequent calculator bashing is to keep the carbon trader fraternity happy as, if my gross error is within 3%, then I'm happy to close up and push off homewards.
Simples or not?
Last edited by BARKINGMAD; 4th Aug 2013 at 09:48.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Turin
Are some of you actually saying that you, as commander of your a/c, will depart from the gate with fare paying passengers on board, without cross checking that the fuel uplift is within tolerance.
I am shocked!
I am shocked!
Shocking indeed, although nowhere near as shocking as the kind of money we do this for.
Only half a speed-brake
If the gauges show what the release says they should show, we're good to go. We also don't start the engines by hand any longer, nor check the oil in each engine prior to departure.
Shocking indeed, although nowhere near as shocking as the kind of money we do this for.
Shocking indeed, although nowhere near as shocking as the kind of money we do this for.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the gauges show what the release says they should show, we're good to go. We also don't start the engines by hand any longer, nor check the oil in each engine prior to departure.
Shocking indeed, although nowhere near as shocking as the kind of money we do this for.
Shocking indeed, although nowhere near as shocking as the kind of money we do this for.
On August 5 Quinter's ATR-72 TS-LBB arrived at Tunis with 790 kgs of fuel left in the fuel tanks. During maintenance the Fuel Quantity Indicator (FQI) was changed. Erroneously the FQI for ATR-42 aircraft was installed. The normal operation of the FQI is to processes the signal coming from the capacitance probes installed in the tanks with an algorithm typical for each aircraft, depending on tank shape, size and number of probes installed. The indication of the amount of fuel on board the airplane now read 3050 kgs instead of 790 kgs. On August 6 the airplane was prepared for flight 152F to Bari. An amount of 465 kgs fuel was added for the flight (total fuel: 1255 kgs, with 3800 kgs indicated). Upon landing at Bari only 305 kgs were left in the tanks. Normally this should have triggered a 'LO LVL' warning, but the FQI read 2300 kgs, which made the crew believe they had plenty of fuel left. In preparation for the flight to Djerba, just 265 kgs of fuel was added. The flight departed with 2700 kgs of fuel indicated by the FQI (actual amount: 570 kgs).
En route, at 15:24 the crew contacted Palermo for an emergency landing. They had run out of fuel and both engines had quit. Their FQI nevertheless showed 1800 kgs of fuel. They did not make it to Palermo and ditched in the sea around 15:40.
ASN Aircraft accident ATR-72-202 TS-LBB Palermo-Punta Raisi Airport (PMO)
Last edited by JammedStab; 5th Aug 2013 at 23:20.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JammedStab
So what is your method to discover a faulty fuel quantity system and if you had been captain of this flight, would you have ended up in the same situation?
After the airplane was released by the maintenance, nobody could have catch the erroneous indication ...
Unless a dip or full-tank refuel is done on a regular basis (or the aeroplane runs out of fuel, or more likely the separate-pickup low-fuel lights illuminate if fitted)) a dodgy FQI system won't be picked up by the normal 3% check. A dip/full tank check should be mandatory after a FQIS servicing.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FUEL GUAGE HEALTH MONITORING.
Agreed Capt Bloggs, but such a procedure costs money and would leave a frame with absolutely full tanks with no flight to earn bucks to follow.
Can't see the engineers getting that past the beancounters.
Surely adequate recording of guage figures, cross-checked by volume checks and finally a space in the tech log to record and compare how much the engines have guzzled, a figure which would also be included as part of the verification, would be more likely to be implemented by the psycho corporations of today?
Obviously APU running, ground running post-wash, MCDs etc has to be accounted for, but hopefully a drift out of tolerance will be picked up by those in Eng Records?
The ATR suffered from inadequate Tech Log entries which was one of the holes in that cheese, illustrating how important it is to accurately record the regular uplifts.
Can't see the engineers getting that past the beancounters.
Surely adequate recording of guage figures, cross-checked by volume checks and finally a space in the tech log to record and compare how much the engines have guzzled, a figure which would also be included as part of the verification, would be more likely to be implemented by the psycho corporations of today?
Obviously APU running, ground running post-wash, MCDs etc has to be accounted for, but hopefully a drift out of tolerance will be picked up by those in Eng Records?
The ATR suffered from inadequate Tech Log entries which was one of the holes in that cheese, illustrating how important it is to accurately record the regular uplifts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I would have caught it as I did a check on every uplift I ever had on the ATR. In Bari, the required fuel uplift was 400 kg. This means about 900 pounds required. Total liters uplifted was 340 litres.
For a quick check, 340 times 2 equals 680 minus 10% equals about 600 pounds uplifted compared to 900 required. That is around a 30% error. Actually, they had a known uplift their point of origin as well that was off by over 30%. Their fuel burn for the first leg was 37% high.
Isn't that what the intention of a fuel check is all about?
Last edited by JammedStab; 6th Aug 2013 at 10:26.
Originally Posted by flyboyike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turin
Are some of you actually saying that you, as commander of your a/c, will depart from the gate with fare paying passengers on board, without cross checking that the fuel uplift is within tolerance.
I am shocked!
If the gauges show what the release says they should show, we're good to go. We also don't start the engines by hand any longer, nor check the oil in each engine prior to departure.
Shocking indeed, although nowhere near as shocking as the kind of money we do this for.
Originally Posted by Turin
Are some of you actually saying that you, as commander of your a/c, will depart from the gate with fare paying passengers on board, without cross checking that the fuel uplift is within tolerance.
I am shocked!
If the gauges show what the release says they should show, we're good to go. We also don't start the engines by hand any longer, nor check the oil in each engine prior to departure.
Shocking indeed, although nowhere near as shocking as the kind of money we do this for.
Most large transport a/c I am familiar with will have the oil checked before departure. Either a physical check or gauge.
I agree with the shocking amount of money "we" do this for too but I'll bet you wouldn't trade your wage for mine.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TURIN, I don't know what your background is, but if I have to explain to you what a dispatch release is, I fear we won't get far.
And no, "most transport" category airplanes don't have the oil checked before departure, that's utter nonsense. There is an oil quantity indication on the EICAS. If it's in the green, that's all I care about.
And no, "most transport" category airplanes don't have the oil checked before departure, that's utter nonsense. There is an oil quantity indication on the EICAS. If it's in the green, that's all I care about.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel on gauges/ required fuel - fuel remaining(previous sector) = required uplift in kgs
Converted into litres and recorded as required uplift in litres
actual uplift in litres then converted into kgs and recorded then,
added to fuel remaining (previous sector)
Total in tanks, to equal within tolerance of 300kg, the calculated fuel
= ball ache
Converted into litres and recorded as required uplift in litres
actual uplift in litres then converted into kgs and recorded then,
added to fuel remaining (previous sector)
Total in tanks, to equal within tolerance of 300kg, the calculated fuel
= ball ache
Last edited by sjm; 6th Aug 2013 at 15:27.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flyboyike
TURIN, I don't know what your background is, but if I have to explain to you what a dispatch release is, I fear we won't get far.