BM FUEL PROBLEMS??
Guest
Posts: n/a
BM FUEL PROBLEMS??
This morning during very busy EAT situations at Heathrow two BM aircraft indicated that they were effectively short of fuel. One wanted to ensure that his spacing from the one ahead was enough to avoid a go-around and the other gent got a bit tetchy when his EAT slipped by a couple of minutes.
There were problems today caused by a strong easterly wind resulting in a reduced landing rate and a go-around also lost us a slot. However, for two fairly short-distance flights to enter the realms of fuel shortage is something we ATC wallahs don't understand.
Is there something you'd like to whisper to us, chaps?
There were problems today caused by a strong easterly wind resulting in a reduced landing rate and a go-around also lost us a slot. However, for two fairly short-distance flights to enter the realms of fuel shortage is something we ATC wallahs don't understand.
Is there something you'd like to whisper to us, chaps?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not aware of any new clamp-down on the amounts of fuel being carried, so it sounds like one of two problems:
1. They under-estimated the likely delay.
2. They were management pilots trying to demonstrate that you don't need to carry "extra" fuel into LHR!
1. They under-estimated the likely delay.
2. They were management pilots trying to demonstrate that you don't need to carry "extra" fuel into LHR!
Guest
Posts: n/a
CAA have just published a Special Objectives Check on Fuel Planning. It is available from CAA website
www.srg.caa.co.uk/documents/srg_fops_fuel_soc_focus1.pdf
& also on the CHIRP website www.chirp.co.uk.
It sounds like the guys concerned need to read it!! As it says in the latest IPA magazine, the ONLY time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire!
[This message has been edited by DouglasDigby (edited 01 May 2001).]
www.srg.caa.co.uk/documents/srg_fops_fuel_soc_focus1.pdf
& also on the CHIRP website www.chirp.co.uk.
It sounds like the guys concerned need to read it!! As it says in the latest IPA magazine, the ONLY time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire!
[This message has been edited by DouglasDigby (edited 01 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Short distance flight means low fuel burn. Contingency fuel is 5% of fuel burn, or in this case 5% of not much.
OK, they should have their holding fuel at LHR factored in to their fuel plan somewhere, but one hold more than they planned on, or even an extended pattern, and that tiny bit of fat has all gone.
OK, they should have their holding fuel at LHR factored in to their fuel plan somewhere, but one hold more than they planned on, or even an extended pattern, and that tiny bit of fat has all gone.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Delays were between 20 and 25 minutes for most aircraft from the moment we walked in at 7am, until we walked out at 2pm. Some would have got slightly less than 20, some slightly more than 25.
Don't most companies plan fuel loads for aircraft inbound to Heathrow based on a normal delay of 20 minutes (i.e. any delay of 20 minutes or less equals no delay as far as fuel-planning goes)?
AI
[This message has been edited by Aluminium Importer (edited 01 May 2001).]
Don't most companies plan fuel loads for aircraft inbound to Heathrow based on a normal delay of 20 minutes (i.e. any delay of 20 minutes or less equals no delay as far as fuel-planning goes)?
AI
[This message has been edited by Aluminium Importer (edited 01 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh dearie me, do we really need all sorts of "PC" working papers/parties to decide whether and how much excess fuel we should carry into LHR??
It does not take rocket science for anyone with any common sense on an aircraft with stacks of performance and the luxury of loading on as much fuel as you like to make a decision to carry extra fuel!!
Just how long will it be before somebody runs dry and one thing is for sure, jet engines do not run very well on air!
------------------
It does not take rocket science for anyone with any common sense on an aircraft with stacks of performance and the luxury of loading on as much fuel as you like to make a decision to carry extra fuel!!
Just how long will it be before somebody runs dry and one thing is for sure, jet engines do not run very well on air!
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
This has been a problem in Midland for a long time. Ask any non-management, and sensible, pilot at Midland they will tell you that they are pressured to carry only the fuel on the jet plan with no more contingency than is required by law. Any personal adaptations to Flight plan fuel have to be justified - to the last Kg!
When I left Midland 5 years ago this was becoming a huge morale problem. It was not unheard of for individuals that routinely carried 1000k to be called in to the office for a political chat.
When I flew with management pilots it amazed me that they would always try to reduce the flight plan fuel as much as possible to prove a point. I have been in the hold at LAM with these people with no more than 10 minutes hold fuel - and that is after using diversion fuel (i.e planning to land with about 1500kgs on a 737!!!).
I know it costs money to carry fuel. However, the cost of just one diversion would ruin many months of cost saving activities.
I would not plan to land at LHR, in a 737, with less than 3000kgs - unless we were really scratching around for performance.
This is a safe figure. Anything less is potentially hazardous - especially at Heathrow! Not to mention potentially very disrupting for the likes of Heathrow Director. Heathrow is a seperate entity with fuel planning. There are too many vagaries! Imagine If all the aircraft going into LHR carried bare minimum then a couple of go-arounds, blocked runway, etc, occured. Then do you really think Heathrow Director would get every one down safe in time????
I'm sure he would do his best but airlines like Midland would not have contributed to any success!
Does anyone out there actually have the figures for cost of aircraft carrying 1000kgs greater than jet plan compared to the savings of not. Then how much would a diversion cost - including all periphery costs (i.e. coaching pax, crew duty etc,etc,etc - everything)
When I left Midland 5 years ago this was becoming a huge morale problem. It was not unheard of for individuals that routinely carried 1000k to be called in to the office for a political chat.
When I flew with management pilots it amazed me that they would always try to reduce the flight plan fuel as much as possible to prove a point. I have been in the hold at LAM with these people with no more than 10 minutes hold fuel - and that is after using diversion fuel (i.e planning to land with about 1500kgs on a 737!!!).
I know it costs money to carry fuel. However, the cost of just one diversion would ruin many months of cost saving activities.
I would not plan to land at LHR, in a 737, with less than 3000kgs - unless we were really scratching around for performance.
This is a safe figure. Anything less is potentially hazardous - especially at Heathrow! Not to mention potentially very disrupting for the likes of Heathrow Director. Heathrow is a seperate entity with fuel planning. There are too many vagaries! Imagine If all the aircraft going into LHR carried bare minimum then a couple of go-arounds, blocked runway, etc, occured. Then do you really think Heathrow Director would get every one down safe in time????
I'm sure he would do his best but airlines like Midland would not have contributed to any success!
Does anyone out there actually have the figures for cost of aircraft carrying 1000kgs greater than jet plan compared to the savings of not. Then how much would a diversion cost - including all periphery costs (i.e. coaching pax, crew duty etc,etc,etc - everything)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very interesting jeta1.
If what you say is true then this must mean that their relevant Ops Manual does not reflect JARS etc.
It is a while since I checked but the instructions to holders of AOCs stated that instructions should be included in the Ops Manual that crews should carry extra fuel when planning to operate in "congested airspace". I think you could argue that the whole of the London Airspace is "congested".
So the next logical question is why the CAA are not enforcing the rules?
I am not saying that there is never a case for just taking "flight plan" fuel but, as I said before, this is surely not rocket science.
Has the authority of the our aircraft commanders been usurped to an extent that flight safety is compromised?
One thing is for sure - there's nothing economic about running dry!
------------------
If what you say is true then this must mean that their relevant Ops Manual does not reflect JARS etc.
It is a while since I checked but the instructions to holders of AOCs stated that instructions should be included in the Ops Manual that crews should carry extra fuel when planning to operate in "congested airspace". I think you could argue that the whole of the London Airspace is "congested".
So the next logical question is why the CAA are not enforcing the rules?
I am not saying that there is never a case for just taking "flight plan" fuel but, as I said before, this is surely not rocket science.
Has the authority of the our aircraft commanders been usurped to an extent that flight safety is compromised?
One thing is for sure - there's nothing economic about running dry!
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thinalbert is slightly wrong about contingency fuel. It is 5% of burn but additionally is 15 minutes fuel holding at 1500' at the planned landing weight.
Sooner or later someone is going to get caught out into LHR. It is routine to commit to landing there from the hold, and I can think of many occasions over the years where the airport has shut completely at short notice. (eg mortars, accidents). I always carry extra there, and have on a few occasions been very glad of it. Much more fuel is wasted in inefficient flying (badly planned or high speed descents) than is burned by carrying a little extra, in short haul at any rate.
IMHO the management dogma of min. fuel carriage is one of the greatest threats to flight safety at present.
Sooner or later someone is going to get caught out into LHR. It is routine to commit to landing there from the hold, and I can think of many occasions over the years where the airport has shut completely at short notice. (eg mortars, accidents). I always carry extra there, and have on a few occasions been very glad of it. Much more fuel is wasted in inefficient flying (badly planned or high speed descents) than is burned by carrying a little extra, in short haul at any rate.
IMHO the management dogma of min. fuel carriage is one of the greatest threats to flight safety at present.
Guest
Posts: n/a
jeta1, agree entirely. Luckily my company doesn't interrogate those who wish to carry more than plog fuel. Some of us do, and some don't - there are many considerations on the day, and as DouglasDigby has pointed out, the recent SOC by the CAA highlights most of these.
As for your question : For a 3:45 trip to Canaries today on A321 at 85,000Kg, each extra 1000Kg of fuel carried cost 90kg in extra burn. So I imagine on short sectors in Europe it must be equivalent to the square root of not a lot !! I don't suppose the bean counters would see it in the same light, but then they've never been up there when delays, unforecasted wx changes etc. happen all over the UK at the same time. You know, one of those days when the extra tonne gives you 20 mins breathing and thinking time.
As for your question : For a 3:45 trip to Canaries today on A321 at 85,000Kg, each extra 1000Kg of fuel carried cost 90kg in extra burn. So I imagine on short sectors in Europe it must be equivalent to the square root of not a lot !! I don't suppose the bean counters would see it in the same light, but then they've never been up there when delays, unforecasted wx changes etc. happen all over the UK at the same time. You know, one of those days when the extra tonne gives you 20 mins breathing and thinking time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No-one at bmi is ever put under pressure to carry sector fuel and very few to my knowledge do.
Contingency fuel is 5% of trip fuel or a certain minimum according to type which equates to about ten minutes holding time.
bmi fuel policy is determined by JAR-OPS rules and this includes the option to dispense with your alternate airfield and burn that fuel - in this case STN (approx 40 mins holding) if certain criteria are met, one of which is the issuing of an EAT (or that no significant delays are likely)
I believe it is fully justified to operate to JAR-OPS rules (that is what they are there for) and further that an early warning to ATC about an impending problem is far better than waiting for it to happen.
Contingency fuel is 5% of trip fuel or a certain minimum according to type which equates to about ten minutes holding time.
bmi fuel policy is determined by JAR-OPS rules and this includes the option to dispense with your alternate airfield and burn that fuel - in this case STN (approx 40 mins holding) if certain criteria are met, one of which is the issuing of an EAT (or that no significant delays are likely)
I believe it is fully justified to operate to JAR-OPS rules (that is what they are there for) and further that an early warning to ATC about an impending problem is far better than waiting for it to happen.
Guest
Posts: n/a
snooky
Its generally 5% or 15 mins whichever is greater, with other complications on longer flights such as en route alternates reducing the figure. However, what happened to throwing away the alternate? In the hold we only need 1 runway along with EAT etc.If the BM's threw away the alternate and were tight after 20 mins that may raise some questions but I wasn't there.
NN
[This message has been edited by normal_nigel (edited 01 May 2001).]
Its generally 5% or 15 mins whichever is greater, with other complications on longer flights such as en route alternates reducing the figure. However, what happened to throwing away the alternate? In the hold we only need 1 runway along with EAT etc.If the BM's threw away the alternate and were tight after 20 mins that may raise some questions but I wasn't there.
NN
[This message has been edited by normal_nigel (edited 01 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to say that I have been a skipper with BMA (sorry BMI) for quite a few years now and have never felt under any pressure not to carry extra fuel. I put whatever I want on and rarely bother annotating the fuel plan as to why. I have never been questioned by the management and unless I started carrying tons extra every flight I won't be. They are to busy keeping their heads above water to worry anyway!. From what I hear BM are pretty laid back about it compared to some others. BM have a lot of faults as an employer and as an airline but putting pressure on Captains about fuel is not one of them.
When operating into LHR I tend to put about 15 mins extra fuel on. By the time we get to the hold this usually means about 20mins fuel remains before you have to start thinking about ditching the alternate and continuing to hold. All the stuff about mortar attacks, blocked runways etc. is a total red herring. These things can happen at any airport including the one you have diverted to which is why JAA fuel planning allows you to dispense with your alternate if the delay is known and carry on holding.
When operating into LHR I tend to put about 15 mins extra fuel on. By the time we get to the hold this usually means about 20mins fuel remains before you have to start thinking about ditching the alternate and continuing to hold. All the stuff about mortar attacks, blocked runways etc. is a total red herring. These things can happen at any airport including the one you have diverted to which is why JAA fuel planning allows you to dispense with your alternate if the delay is known and carry on holding.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thinalbert and snooky,
both wrong actually, contingency is 5% or 5 mins at 1500ft.
As Max angle says, one of the things bmi does not get exercised about is a bit of fuel for the wife and kids. The extra burn is so small that you'd spend the rest of your career trying to save the cost of one diversion by carrying sector fuel.
When it does go pear-shaped it's nice if the fuel gauge doesn't become the primary flight instrument too!
both wrong actually, contingency is 5% or 5 mins at 1500ft.
As Max angle says, one of the things bmi does not get exercised about is a bit of fuel for the wife and kids. The extra burn is so small that you'd spend the rest of your career trying to save the cost of one diversion by carrying sector fuel.
When it does go pear-shaped it's nice if the fuel gauge doesn't become the primary flight instrument too!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now let me see, for all of the 15 years that I have been in commercial aviation I have been hearing that it is such a huge threat to safety etc to be carrying flight plan fuel.
Whatever happened to good judgement? I carry flight plan fuel routinely unless I see very good reason to take more. If I take more I make it a worthwhile amount.
My company's policy is FP fuel unless good reason to take more. If I have to divert due low fuel then it is because this policy has failed me. I have not had to divert for low fuel in those 15 years. I do not know many that have.
Not exactly short of boltholes in the south UK either are we?
Sure I would feel great having an extra 15 minutes on every arrival. But it is a little like each crew member only taking one minature per nightstop it adds up to much more if we all did it routinely.
I feel no pressure to take less than I am comfortable with.
Whatever happened to good judgement? I carry flight plan fuel routinely unless I see very good reason to take more. If I take more I make it a worthwhile amount.
My company's policy is FP fuel unless good reason to take more. If I have to divert due low fuel then it is because this policy has failed me. I have not had to divert for low fuel in those 15 years. I do not know many that have.
Not exactly short of boltholes in the south UK either are we?
Sure I would feel great having an extra 15 minutes on every arrival. But it is a little like each crew member only taking one minature per nightstop it adds up to much more if we all did it routinely.
I feel no pressure to take less than I am comfortable with.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the input Snooky & Ark Royal.
Contingency is just 5% of burn in our mob. There is a default setting of 10 minutes fuel at cruise altitude factored in to the automatically generated fuel plan but this can be ignored if various criteria are met. Its in the Ops Manual, approved by our operating authority and accepted by the CAA.
Is it sensible? Well thats a whole different matter. Good thing in our company is that you dont get flak for making a sensible decision re LHR fuel. I fly a wide body twin and I can't remember when I last arrived at my holding fix for LHR with less than 10 tonnes.
Contingency is just 5% of burn in our mob. There is a default setting of 10 minutes fuel at cruise altitude factored in to the automatically generated fuel plan but this can be ignored if various criteria are met. Its in the Ops Manual, approved by our operating authority and accepted by the CAA.
Is it sensible? Well thats a whole different matter. Good thing in our company is that you dont get flak for making a sensible decision re LHR fuel. I fly a wide body twin and I can't remember when I last arrived at my holding fix for LHR with less than 10 tonnes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My "red herring" earlier about comitting to LHR is something which requires a little thought, though I don't deny that to do so conforms to JAR ops.
Many people use their diversion fuel into LHR as effectively extra contingency fuel, routinely comitting themselves to a landing there. Almost 100% of the time this is fine, and they land safely. The problem arises when LHR is suddenly totally closed whilst they are at a late stage of the approach. I know that this happens very infrequently, but if diversion fuel is routinely used as contingency fuel, then over the years sooner or later someone will have a problem.
It is not true to say that this is the same scenario as being comitted to your diversion following a go around, since the chances of both getting the diversion and then finding that airfield closed are very remote.
Many people use their diversion fuel into LHR as effectively extra contingency fuel, routinely comitting themselves to a landing there. Almost 100% of the time this is fine, and they land safely. The problem arises when LHR is suddenly totally closed whilst they are at a late stage of the approach. I know that this happens very infrequently, but if diversion fuel is routinely used as contingency fuel, then over the years sooner or later someone will have a problem.
It is not true to say that this is the same scenario as being comitted to your diversion following a go around, since the chances of both getting the diversion and then finding that airfield closed are very remote.