Are most airlines requiring fuel uplift calculations by crew
The only dispatch release I know of is the one sent by acars to the a/c with the MEL items added. I take it this also has your fuel requirement on it.
However, surely, someone will cross check the uplift against pre-refuelling fuel on board to ensure the gauges and calculations tallies?
As for an oil check. Not nonsense at all. Every transit check I know of, whether it be an N, G, 9V, A6, A7, D or F registered someone, whether it be maintenance or flt crew, will check the oil level. That includes you chief when you glance at the EICAS.
However, surely, someone will cross check the uplift against pre-refuelling fuel on board to ensure the gauges and calculations tallies?
As for an oil check. Not nonsense at all. Every transit check I know of, whether it be an N, G, 9V, A6, A7, D or F registered someone, whether it be maintenance or flt crew, will check the oil level. That includes you chief when you glance at the EICAS.
In easyland we note the arrival fuel, expected uplift in KG, actual uplift in litres, actual uplift converted to KG and the departure fuel in the tech log. The oil quantities are also noted before every departure. All very sensible and takes all of 30 seconds, provided you are proficient in your 0.8 times table. 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JammedStab, thanks for the reply, interesting.
I initially thought the error between the fuel quantity indication and the real fuel quantity on board was a constant whatever the real fuel quantity.
There was a possibility, for a very alert crew, to hopefully investigate further the unusual fuel burn or the little fuel added in liters versus in kg according to the FQI.
I initially thought the error between the fuel quantity indication and the real fuel quantity on board was a constant whatever the real fuel quantity.
There was a possibility, for a very alert crew, to hopefully investigate further the unusual fuel burn or the little fuel added in liters versus in kg according to the FQI.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
300 KGS IS BOLLOX!
sjm "Total in tanks, to equal within tolerance of 300kg, the calculated fuel"
PLEASE don't continue with this mythical figure of 300kgs!
It might apply to very large aircraft with very large uplifts, but what if one only uplifted 1 tonne? I leave it to you to work out the % error in that?
The 737 quotes guage tolerance of +/- 2.5% at FULL in each tank, so let's stay with that form of tolerance and the quoted maker's figures for any type.
The 300kgs figure has been bandied around too long by those who haven't thought it through, even engineers, so can we bury it in the fairy tales book once and for all time????
PLEASE don't continue with this mythical figure of 300kgs!
It might apply to very large aircraft with very large uplifts, but what if one only uplifted 1 tonne? I leave it to you to work out the % error in that?
The 737 quotes guage tolerance of +/- 2.5% at FULL in each tank, so let's stay with that form of tolerance and the quoted maker's figures for any type.
The 300kgs figure has been bandied around too long by those who haven't thought it through, even engineers, so can we bury it in the fairy tales book once and for all time????
At my airline the written SOP is to check the fuel uplift, but that's it. Doesn't matter what the check shows, there is no guidance on what discrepancy is acceptable.
Probably why the prevalent SOP is to skip the check.
Probably why the prevalent SOP is to skip the check.
Barking,
You're being a bit harsh there. He did say:
, not the uplift within 300kg.
I'm glad about that! 
You're being a bit harsh there. He did say:
Total in tanks, to equal within tolerance of 300kg, the calculated fuel
At my airline the written SOP is to check the fuel uplift
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 7th Aug 2013 at 02:10.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FIXED NUMBER AMONGST VARYING TOTALS.
Cap'n Bloggs, harsh but fair.
I presume we are discussing a variety of types, with greatly varying tankage.
If the ATR off Palermo permitted 300kgs of error tolerance, then that accident could have happened without the wrong guages.
"Total in tanks, to equal within tolerance of 300kg, the calculated fuel", is a plain statement, which I have obviously misinterpreted, so I wait for clarification and education.
Can we have your understanding of this FIXED figure amongst the enormous variety of uplifts every day by a multitude of crews?
Keeping the fuel exhaustion accidents in mind, Alidair Viscount @ Ottery St Mary in UK in 70s, the lbs/kgs Canadian (A300?) deadstick landing, the Tunisian ATR off Palermo and others, I am concerned that in the absence of ones own company quoting HARD tolerance figures that someone reading this thread may go off into the blue accepting the 300kg figure as a useful guideline.
I blame the companies for not specifying this figure in their OMs, strange given the understandable obsession with crew fuel uptakes and the reasons for taking any extra above the CFP figure.
Now I am
!!, but put it down to age and too many sectors at night..................
I presume we are discussing a variety of types, with greatly varying tankage.
If the ATR off Palermo permitted 300kgs of error tolerance, then that accident could have happened without the wrong guages.
"Total in tanks, to equal within tolerance of 300kg, the calculated fuel", is a plain statement, which I have obviously misinterpreted, so I wait for clarification and education.
Can we have your understanding of this FIXED figure amongst the enormous variety of uplifts every day by a multitude of crews?
Keeping the fuel exhaustion accidents in mind, Alidair Viscount @ Ottery St Mary in UK in 70s, the lbs/kgs Canadian (A300?) deadstick landing, the Tunisian ATR off Palermo and others, I am concerned that in the absence of ones own company quoting HARD tolerance figures that someone reading this thread may go off into the blue accepting the 300kg figure as a useful guideline.
I blame the companies for not specifying this figure in their OMs, strange given the understandable obsession with crew fuel uptakes and the reasons for taking any extra above the CFP figure.
Now I am
!!, but put it down to age and too many sectors at night..................
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Unsettled
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally you would calculate how many liters roughly you are expecting before the fueller has even connected. This is just common sense, regardless of what your SOP may be.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRMANSHIP-THIS WORD HAS BEEN CENSORED!!
"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." BM Posting # 28?
"Normally you would calculate how many liters roughly you are expecting before the fueller has even connected. This is just common sense, regardless of what your SOP may be." Root Postin # 49
We may be straying into that dangerous area which used to be known as "airmanship", since replaced by "where does it say that in the book?".
Hopefully some companies' managements are following this thread and might just respond with some firm guidance for those of us not previously indoctrinated in the mysteries of fuel reconciliation.
Until then I will carry on doing what has prevented me and others from converting our expensive toys into gliders for want of some simple maths.
And as in the other thread, I shall continue to practise gliding in the expensive toy by way of performing CDAs where possible, but with juice in the tanks to keep me outa the smoking hole, though if there's no fuel, then there would not be too much smoke.....................................?
"Normally you would calculate how many liters roughly you are expecting before the fueller has even connected. This is just common sense, regardless of what your SOP may be." Root Postin # 49
We may be straying into that dangerous area which used to be known as "airmanship", since replaced by "where does it say that in the book?".
Hopefully some companies' managements are following this thread and might just respond with some firm guidance for those of us not previously indoctrinated in the mysteries of fuel reconciliation.
Until then I will carry on doing what has prevented me and others from converting our expensive toys into gliders for want of some simple maths.
And as in the other thread, I shall continue to practise gliding in the expensive toy by way of performing CDAs where possible, but with juice in the tanks to keep me outa the smoking hole, though if there's no fuel, then there would not be too much smoke.....................................?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JammedStab, thanks for the reply, interesting.
I initially thought the error between the fuel quantity indication and the real fuel quantity on board was a constant whatever the real fuel quantity.
There was a possibility, for a very alert crew, to hopefully investigate further the unusual fuel burn or the little fuel added in liters versus in kg according to the FQI.
I initially thought the error between the fuel quantity indication and the real fuel quantity on board was a constant whatever the real fuel quantity.
There was a possibility, for a very alert crew, to hopefully investigate further the unusual fuel burn or the little fuel added in liters versus in kg according to the FQI.
Of course the greenies don't like the idea of a bit of fuel going on the ramp as can be seen at some European airports. But then again it is going to come out of the aircraft one way or the other.
Last edited by JammedStab; 7th Aug 2013 at 13:26.
I blame the companies for not specifying this figure in their OMs, strange given the understandable obsession with crew fuel uptakes and the reasons for taking any extra above the CFP figure.
From what I am reading on this thread it comes as a surprise, to me at least, that the above is not the norm.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REFUEL MANUAL.
Yes, Turin, there used to be a Noddys guide to refuelling aboard, but now that we're not allowed even to carry a screwdriver for "minor maintenance tasks", presumably because some EASA desk pilot considers us unfit for such duties, I suspect it's been removed.
Even worse, it's been hidden or lost in the maze of EFB or e-manuals which are all the rage with de management, but as a recent CHIRP demonstrates, are not necessarily the answer to the task of staying abreast of changes.
As part of my inflight occupational therapy, I will on my next trip scour the flight deck for such a publication, but without much hope of success.
I might even discover the source of the magic 300kgs figure....................?
Even worse, it's been hidden or lost in the maze of EFB or e-manuals which are all the rage with de management, but as a recent CHIRP demonstrates, are not necessarily the answer to the task of staying abreast of changes.
As part of my inflight occupational therapy, I will on my next trip scour the flight deck for such a publication, but without much hope of success.
I might even discover the source of the magic 300kgs figure....................?
Last edited by BARKINGMAD; 7th Aug 2013 at 22:17.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Turin
Every, and I mean every, commercial aircraft I have worked over the last 30 years or so has carried a refuelling manual onboard. It details the refuelling procedures, lists allowable refuelling discrepancies and pages of stick conversion tables based on differing SGs and aircraft attitudes.
I've never seen a refuelling manual either.
For those that calculate your expected uplift beforehand as a matter of airmanship, what would you do if the uplift was 1000 litres less than what you expected? Delay departure and investigate, or go anyway?
For those that calculate your expected uplift beforehand as a matter of airmanship, what would you do if the uplift was 1000 litres less than what you expected? Delay departure and investigate, or go anyway?
For those that calculate your expected uplift beforehand as a matter of airmanship, what would you do if the uplift was 1000 litres less than what you expected? Delay departure and investigate, or go anyway?
I've never seen a refuelling manual either.
For those that calculate your expected uplift beforehand as a matter of airmanship, what would you do if the uplift was 1000 litres less than what you expected? Delay departure and investigate, or go anyway?
For those that calculate your expected uplift beforehand as a matter of airmanship, what would you do if the uplift was 1000 litres less than what you expected? Delay departure and investigate, or go anyway?
This is where your refuelling manual comes in. It will show whether or not the 1000 ltrs is within the allowed discrepancy for that type / fuel load.
EG.
The 747 classic used to have arbitary allowable discrepancy figures of +2% and -1% of the fuel load.
So, for a fuel load of 130,000 KG, the allowable discrepancy was +2600kg and -1300KG.
Except, its not that simple. There was also a graph showing an upper limit to the discrepancy. I can't remember off hand what that was. 1200KG rings a bell but to be honest its such a long time since I refuelled a 747 the grey matter is struggling.
However, the figure of 300KG quoted previously may have been the upper limit for a smaller type such as a 737.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TO GO OR NOT TO GO.
As per Turin, were it a VERY large 'frame where I'd uplifted 100,000 litres, then the discrepancy is +/- 1% which should be well within the makers fuel guage tolerance figure.
If it's my current 73NG mount, or a small 'bus, then everything will stop for tea whilst dip checks are carried out.
I still can't understand why FIXED litreage/kgs/lbs figures are still being bandied about when it surely must be a percentage of any uplift to be meaningful and accurate?
The principle of working out an accurate volume expected is not just good airmanship (that word again!) to make sure you have enough/not too much and that the FQIS is working properly, but sensible practice before you release the bowser to disappear elsewhere on the airfield and then need to call for top-up.
Try this at Majorca on a busy summer weekend day and you can forget about ATC slots and start looking at your duty hours?!
If it's my current 73NG mount, or a small 'bus, then everything will stop for tea whilst dip checks are carried out.
I still can't understand why FIXED litreage/kgs/lbs figures are still being bandied about when it surely must be a percentage of any uplift to be meaningful and accurate?
The principle of working out an accurate volume expected is not just good airmanship (that word again!) to make sure you have enough/not too much and that the FQIS is working properly, but sensible practice before you release the bowser to disappear elsewhere on the airfield and then need to call for top-up.
Try this at Majorca on a busy summer weekend day and you can forget about ATC slots and start looking at your duty hours?!
Pprune Archive
While googling for an example fuel manual I found this...
Pprune Archive 2010
Bit more info and a few post from yours truly that I have no memory of.
Pprune Archive 2010
Bit more info and a few post from yours truly that I have no memory of.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JammedStab
The best plane I ever flew for having an accurate fuel check was the HS-748. At our home base, the fueller would be told the flightplan fuel. He would hook up the fuel hose, then pull the fuel dripsticks out to the appropriate fuel quantity level(which stick was pulled depended on how much fuel was required) and then pumped away until fuel started dribbling out. If our gauges matched what was required on the flight plan(which is the amount given to the fueller) or was close, then it was accurate.