Are most airlines requiring fuel uplift calculations by crew
 

All the crew at my previous company were doing at least a rough calculation to add the uplift to fuel remaining to see if it equalled or was close to the new fuel load as a confirmation that the gauges are accurate.

5,000 litres was about 9000 lbs using a formula of double minus 10% and then adding it to the fuel remaining from the last flight which was in the logbook.

Then I got hired by an international airline and it does not seem to be done by the crew(although perhaps the fueller does it). Is it standard for most airlines to require the crew to do this?

In my experience someone does it. Who fills in the tech log fuel section? - stick with SG?

My company Part A says uplift and planned uplift must be within 5%

A fuel quantity crosscheck has to be done each sector and has to be documented in the fuel part of the ACARS journey log (we dont have paper journey logs). The max allowable difference between calculated and indicated fuel is the higher of either 500kgs of fuel or 3% of the indicated fuel. Fuel density should preferrably be provided by the supplier, if that is unavailable a conversion table based on fuel temperature (temperature provided by the supplier) or 0.8 as standard value.

Depends on the airline. Some flt crew take the uplift and sg direct from the refueller and calculate the discrepancy themselves. Others get the ground engineer/technician/mechanic to do the calculations and fill the log in. Either way the Captain or FO do a cross check.

Our company requires us to calculate the uplift. Then to find the difference btn the calculated and the actual uplift.

The only thing though they never told us is how much of this variance is acceptable.

How to calculate the uplift in kgs: (Total fuel required in tanks minus the remaining fuel in tanks before refill) divide by Specific gravity of fuel.

It would be prudent for the operating crew to do the calculation even if it isn't required. It is them not the engineer or refueller that has to live with the consequences of an incorrect uplift.

For UK operators CAP 789 Chapter 9 Paragraph 1.15 has some guidance namely:

1.15 Fuel Uplift Reconciliation
1.15.1 Operators are to ensure that the instructions for the refuelling of aircraft specifically require the commander to reconcile the initial fuel contents, and the known added fuel quantity as per the refueller's written records, with the total contents indicated by the aircraft's fuel gauge at the end of refuelling. If the uplifted fuel is not delivered through a calibrated meter, other means of confirmation such as a visual check of fuel contents will be necessary, which may require the aircraft to be shut down.

This guidance was introduced in FODCOM 01/08 to implement a recommendation addressed to the UK CAA by the Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) in response to a serious incident

AIRMANSHIP
 

The commonsense procedures which used to hold sway have probably been swamped by the beancounters obsession with carbon use and other exotica designed to employ otherwise useless administrators.

WHO in their right mind is going to allow the bowser driver to depart the aircraft without some form of gross error check on how many litres should equal the kg uplift??

Dan-Air and others practised it many years ago, but todays digitally obsessed airlines are not so much worried about whether the crew have enough motion lotion aboard than sweating about the SG and its calorific value and their place in the great carbon trading con which is screwing us all in our domestic fuel bills!

But not any longer, the fuel chit comes aboard, the bowser has :mad:'d off to the other side of the field and the SOP is now to fiddle with calculator changing litres BACK to KGs, using quoted SG figures to 3rd decimal place, then comparing before and after tank indications and then finding out too late that it's not quite right.

Can't see a pilot inventing that check, nor an engineer...................?

The question of discrepancy used to be answered by "oh it's 300kgs" til the respondent was challenged with "and what if we've only uplifted one tonne?". And that was from "qualified 737 engineers" who'd "used that figure on the 757"....................!

It's still a grey area in which a lot of airlines seem to have lost the plot. :ugh:

For what it's worth, at my airline, we never see the fuel slip. The bowser comes up, and fuel us, then goes off to the next plane.

Don't you have a tech log and if so who fills in the fuel uplift?

We see the fuel receipt ( sign it ) then calculate the actual uplift and check it is within limits from the calculated uplift. Also checking grade of fuel and distribution in the correct tanks.....etc

Some Airlines don't do this????
Really?

Let me guess... Air Canada? :}

Let's not get carried away. If you asked for 10,000kg and you got it on the gauges, there's a pretty good chance your "litres added" check will be OK. If the 3%/5% check subsequently doesn't work out, who cares? Ground the aeroplane until the engineers or your FO does a dip, and then launch!

PS: I was in 0A first! ;)

Different reasons
 

In my company, before the introduction of the 2 man cockpit, the Flight Engineers always did this cross-check. But it was (I'd say correctly) deemed to be too much for a 2man crew and hence it was discontinued.

It was reintroduced as a procedure for pilots after an allegation that "those at the other end of the ground interphone" were indulging in malpractice at a particular station. I do not think the company ever found genuine malpractice, but being abundantly careful, the fuel uplift calculation was added as a check to be done by pilots. Prior to this the Engineering offered us the airplane along with fuel and other fluids, and the Captain basically trusted those involved in fuelling etc. and the gauges.

Subsequently it was incorporated in detail into the Tech Log for the attending Engineer to fill, and hence the pilots no longer perform the conversion of the required fuel from volume to weight, but they can view it in the tech log sector release page.

Anyhow, have always been wondering about the possible gambit among those involved, e.g. what exactly could be done with the misappropriated Jet A-1?

Ideas anyone?

If by tech log, you're referring to what we call simply the maintenance log, then yes we do. However, apart from maintenance items, the only thing in there is the Captain's signature and first flight of the day checks.

Where is the record of arrival and departure fuel kept in your airline, CA? There appears to be none, which I believe to be illegal.

Blogs, touché.

Nope not Air Canada. Our OOOI ACARS message includes time and fuel. So there is a record of how much fuel was on board at arrival, but I've never seen anybody check that number. In any event, like I said above, we don't see the fueller anyway, so there's no way for us to know what volume was added.

Part of the reconciliation process is a check against gauging errors. Not good to find you have not got as much fuel as you thought when you divert:uhoh:!

. . and fraud. At a well known Italian airport I noticed that the uplift error always favoured the supplier.
I noted the figures for a few trips and filed a report. Tech manager said that they knew about the problem.
I guess if we'd made waves there would suddenly have been a lot of unexplained delays for our aircraft.
Please don't let the UK become like those places.

And quite a few places over here to Basil who'll push the
discrepancy limit close to the 3% boundary, and they are
smart - if they know the flight and the expected uplift they
will know how much to set on the truck to cheat and when
and when not to do so.

One screwed up once by 100kg requiring me to order a drip
done (refuelling truck was expecting flight AB123 but it was
suddenly changed on the spot to AB456 requiring much less
uplift) and a full investigation was done. Turns out the truck
was zeroed at 130L for 123 whereas 456 would've been 57L.
Truck bloke wasn't told nor could he see the panel change
and expressed surprise when the flow stopped short of what
he expected as the change occurred about a minute after the
refuelling started.