BA's Fuel Policy & League Tables, safe or not?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swedish Steve
The end result may be as you describe, ie more people taking flight plan fuel more often. You have probably despatched me on several occasions over those years.
The reason for the change however has nothing whatsoever to do with the league tables, the vast majority of pilots never consult them.
It is much more to do with 2 other factors:
1. Education. A lot of effort has been put into explaining the rationale behind the fuel policy.
2. The old SWORD planning system did not use Statistical Contingency Fuel. It used a standard 15 minutes or 5% type of number. The new CIRRUS system uses Stat,Cont,Fuel, which can quite often give you 25 minutes contingency inbound to LHR - a figure that most of us can see as being sensible. Cirrus plans use actual reunways in use, whereas SWORD used normal dep runway and longest likely approach routing. Current aircraft FM(G)C's are also much more sophisticated than older versions.
So what I'm saying is that you shouldn't assign a reason to a perceived change in customer practice without knowing more detail.
The end result may be as you describe, ie more people taking flight plan fuel more often. You have probably despatched me on several occasions over those years.
The reason for the change however has nothing whatsoever to do with the league tables, the vast majority of pilots never consult them.
It is much more to do with 2 other factors:
1. Education. A lot of effort has been put into explaining the rationale behind the fuel policy.
2. The old SWORD planning system did not use Statistical Contingency Fuel. It used a standard 15 minutes or 5% type of number. The new CIRRUS system uses Stat,Cont,Fuel, which can quite often give you 25 minutes contingency inbound to LHR - a figure that most of us can see as being sensible. Cirrus plans use actual reunways in use, whereas SWORD used normal dep runway and longest likely approach routing. Current aircraft FM(G)C's are also much more sophisticated than older versions.
So what I'm saying is that you shouldn't assign a reason to a perceived change in customer practice without knowing more detail.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Near the Murray River
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps One, that AIC that you were referring may be the "Special Check on Air Operators Fuel Planning Policies - Summer 2000" which can be seen at the Chirp website,
http://www.chirp.co.uk/New/Downloads...SOC/CAAsoc.pdf
5.21 and 5.2.2 are the paras to read:
5.2.1 Company fuel planning policies varied between operators but nothing was seen that did not accord with the requirements of JAR-OPS 1 and its associated guidance material. Less easy to measure was the ‘company culture’, instructions by the operator on the priorities he xpected his aircraft commanders to apply such as whether or not to uplift Extra Fuel, to accept enforced delays or to make up for lost time, or to accept additional payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of Alternate or Contingency Fuel. Some operators were reported to have in place ‘league tables’ that ‘ranked’ commanders according to the amount of fuel they took on departure exceeding that calculated by the computer program.
5.2.2 The effect of keeping a league table as described exerts a form of pressure on each individual not to be shown up as being different from his colleagues in the fleet and vulnerable to attract attention from his fleet manager. Such perceived pressure is known to have resulted in pilots departing with less than that calculated by the computer-generated fuel plan so that their position in the table could be ‘improved’. To depart on a public transport flight with less than the flight plan fuel calculated in accordance with a program accepted by the Regulator as sound - and without good reason - is likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions under which the Air Operator Certificate was granted. In short, such practice places the continuance of the Certificate at risk.
I have flown with only one pilot who has reduced the fuel required as a result of the latest wacky ZFW idea, so they are out there!!
Also, Cirrus doesnt always get the planned runways correct, but thats just one of the reasons we get paid the big bucks, or should be paid the big bucks!!
http://www.chirp.co.uk/New/Downloads...SOC/CAAsoc.pdf
5.21 and 5.2.2 are the paras to read:
5.2.1 Company fuel planning policies varied between operators but nothing was seen that did not accord with the requirements of JAR-OPS 1 and its associated guidance material. Less easy to measure was the ‘company culture’, instructions by the operator on the priorities he xpected his aircraft commanders to apply such as whether or not to uplift Extra Fuel, to accept enforced delays or to make up for lost time, or to accept additional payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of Alternate or Contingency Fuel. Some operators were reported to have in place ‘league tables’ that ‘ranked’ commanders according to the amount of fuel they took on departure exceeding that calculated by the computer program.
5.2.2 The effect of keeping a league table as described exerts a form of pressure on each individual not to be shown up as being different from his colleagues in the fleet and vulnerable to attract attention from his fleet manager. Such perceived pressure is known to have resulted in pilots departing with less than that calculated by the computer-generated fuel plan so that their position in the table could be ‘improved’. To depart on a public transport flight with less than the flight plan fuel calculated in accordance with a program accepted by the Regulator as sound - and without good reason - is likely to be in breach of the terms and conditions under which the Air Operator Certificate was granted. In short, such practice places the continuance of the Certificate at risk.
I have flown with only one pilot who has reduced the fuel required as a result of the latest wacky ZFW idea, so they are out there!!
Also, Cirrus doesnt always get the planned runways correct, but thats just one of the reasons we get paid the big bucks, or should be paid the big bucks!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: WSSS
Age: 73
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although under no pressure from our Management I almost always amend the burn off, contingency (3% of fuel burn in most circumstances) and fuel required (to the nearest kilo!) if there is a change in ZFW. I then round the figure up to the nearest 100kg for the "fuel in tanks" figure, adding to this if necessary, although LIDO takes most things into account. I cannot think of a good reason to do otherwise.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Samko,
"I almost always amend the burn off, contingency (3% of fuel burn in most circumstances) and fuel required (to the nearest kilo!) if there is a change in ZFW."
Even if the ZFW has gone down? Sounds like you're holding onto the refueller until everyone is onboard and you've got your final loadsheet.
By the way, I love your expression "almost always".
"I almost always amend the burn off, contingency (3% of fuel burn in most circumstances) and fuel required (to the nearest kilo!) if there is a change in ZFW."
Even if the ZFW has gone down? Sounds like you're holding onto the refueller until everyone is onboard and you've got your final loadsheet.
By the way, I love your expression "almost always".
Haven't you ever worked for a company in which you didn't get the final loadsheet until you were halfway out to the runway for take-off and it came through the ACARS?
I was not too thrilled to start with but it seemed to work.
I was not too thrilled to start with but it seemed to work.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: WSSS
Age: 73
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
False Capture,
The only reason I said "almost always" was because on short sectors the difference in burn off is not worth making the effort.
"Even if the ZFW has gone down?" Always, but I am usually made aware of the changes when I report for duty so I rarely have to detain the fuel bowser - that would normally only happen on a "redispatch flight plan" when the normal contingency fuel is reduced.
The only reason I said "almost always" was because on short sectors the difference in burn off is not worth making the effort.
"Even if the ZFW has gone down?" Always, but I am usually made aware of the changes when I report for duty so I rarely have to detain the fuel bowser - that would normally only happen on a "redispatch flight plan" when the normal contingency fuel is reduced.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company has been providing a final ZFW figure for years. I have always complied with it as it seems eminently sensible to do so. If the ZFW goes down by 10 tonnes on a 12 hour sector the typical fuel burn will reduce by around 4 tonnes, on the basis of 3.5% per ton per hour. By reducing the fuel I arrive at the destination with the same reserve as I would have done had I had the original ZFW. If it was safe to go before the ZFW reduction, why should aspersions be cast on the safety of the flight after the ZFW reduction and commensurate reduction in fuel burn. By the same token, if the ZFW increases, our system allows us quickly to ascertain the increased fuel burn and we load the extra accordingly. Are those posters who call the system wacky not increasing the fuel load when the ZFW increases? Perhaps they don't even notice.
Our company also keeps league tables but no-one is ever invited to tea and biscuits to discuss them, as far as I am aware.
On the question of alternates, we have normal alternates and what are referred to as 'Fairweather alternates'. If the forecast weather at destination is worse than 3K and 1000', we must select an alternate other than the 'fairweather alternate'. This alternate is invariably further away than the 'fairweather', thereby giving us at least two options in the event of a diversion.
Our company also keeps league tables but no-one is ever invited to tea and biscuits to discuss them, as far as I am aware.
On the question of alternates, we have normal alternates and what are referred to as 'Fairweather alternates'. If the forecast weather at destination is worse than 3K and 1000', we must select an alternate other than the 'fairweather alternate'. This alternate is invariably further away than the 'fairweather', thereby giving us at least two options in the event of a diversion.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Mach - your company seems to have a good policy regarding alternates. As far the the ZFW thing goes in BA, yes we would do the same as you if ZFW goes up take more, if it goes down take less. The problem is the practicalities of it at the time. Keeping a fueller there "just in case" the ZFW goes down is not practical. If you lose 10 tonnes - sure that is significant. If you lose 700Kg, its not worth the effort to reduce your fuel load by 100Kg - that's what BA management want and in practice no one I know does it. ZFW's are rarely modified by 10 tonnes on my fleet - might be different for the Jumbo. Its about being sensible in my view. Fiddling with fuel to the last couple of hundred kilos is largely pointless - modifiying the load by your 4 tonne example above is sensible. However, if that is a last minute change and the fuel is on (ie cargo doesn't turn up by departure time) then its a cost you have to accept.
On theJumbo the ZFW rarely goes down by more than a tonne or two, which is 200 kgs wo
Hi Hand
Sorry to be naive, wouldn't the refueller put the requested fuel on board? i.e if you wanted 100 t that is what the fueller will give you. Sorry if I am off the mark, just interested in the answer. Ta
Sorry to be naive, wouldn't the refueller put the requested fuel on board? i.e if you wanted 100 t that is what the fueller will give you. Sorry if I am off the mark, just interested in the answer. Ta
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100 tonnes is, as I'm sure you know, 100,000kgs of fuel. Factor in a 0.2% error in the fuelers gauges and you have an extra 200kgs in no time at all. I'm sure there are all sorts of tolerances, both mechanical and human, which lead to us rarely having exactly the requested fuel figure on board when the fuelling is complete.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LYKA
Hi Hand
Sorry to be naive, wouldn't the refueller put the requested fuel on board? i.e if you wanted 100 t that is what the fueller will give you. Sorry if I am off the mark, just interested in the answer. Ta
Sorry to be naive, wouldn't the refueller put the requested fuel on board? i.e if you wanted 100 t that is what the fueller will give you. Sorry if I am off the mark, just interested in the answer. Ta
Thanks for the prompt responce. So do you uplift in LTs / Gal etc? in order to get the right figure or just accept that there might be an error of say +/- 200 KG? I guess you have a fleet tolerance outside which you would get the fueller back to top it off / amend the perf data etc. Thanks again.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You never ask for an amount of Litres/Gallons/Kgs to be put on board, you always ask for what you want left in the tanks after refuelling. That way it's harder to make fuelling calculation errors. If we want to depart with 50 tonnes, we ask for 50 tonnes. On the B767 there is a 200Kg "wobbly bit". As stated above, 5 mins after fuelling the figure will drop 200Kg, so if you ask for 50 tonnes, you usually see 50,200Kg. If you see 50,000Kg its not worth worrying about.
The idea is to fuel to 2 tonnes less than required, wait for the updated ZFW and then load as much as required for the new weight, in case it has gone down. In practice this rarely happens as keeping the fueller there is not always possible, or the latest weight may come too late. ZFW rarely goes up enough to worry about extra fuel, but if it did you could call the fueller back.
The idea is to fuel to 2 tonnes less than required, wait for the updated ZFW and then load as much as required for the new weight, in case it has gone down. In practice this rarely happens as keeping the fueller there is not always possible, or the latest weight may come too late. ZFW rarely goes up enough to worry about extra fuel, but if it did you could call the fueller back.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have worked for an airline where scary attitudes abounded. One was to load fuel in litres, after asking the refueller for the S.G. Ever tried that? And what success rate did you have? He never knew it. I've always diverted on what the gauges told me, so why not start the flight with what the gauges tell you. Cross check the litres is always a good idea, but it's a bit late after the fueller has disappeared to find that the gauges are less than you wanted.
Another scary attitude was that most destinations were CAT 3, and most alternates of those airfields were CAT 3 also, so why take any extra fuel, even in less than CAT weather?! Ouch.
Another scary attitude was that most destinations were CAT 3, and most alternates of those airfields were CAT 3 also, so why take any extra fuel, even in less than CAT weather?! Ouch.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The carriage of what is deemed to be "surplus fuel" has and always will be a vexed and much discussed issue. As well as holding the pilots accountable for the excess uplifted, does BA have a regime in place for the scientific and logical calculation of the estimated ZFW that is to be used for the initial FPL, and do they have standards in place that would call for a new FPL in the case of the est ZFW being more than a specified amount over or under? When the final ZFW is known, is there a procedure in place to determine why variations exceeding a certain number have occurred?
Should more accurate ZFW's were prepared at the planning stage, then surely one would see a reduction in the excess fuel carried? Isn't this about working smarter and giving all necessary confidence to the people who order the fuel and are ultimately accountable? Until standards are set and reviewed further along and up the food chain, the use of so-called "league tables" is an unfair practice.
Should more accurate ZFW's were prepared at the planning stage, then surely one would see a reduction in the excess fuel carried? Isn't this about working smarter and giving all necessary confidence to the people who order the fuel and are ultimately accountable? Until standards are set and reviewed further along and up the food chain, the use of so-called "league tables" is an unfair practice.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does BA have a regime in place for the scientific and logical calculation of the estimated ZFW that is to be used for the initial FPL
do they have standards in place that would call for a new FPL in the case of the est ZFW being more than a specified amount over or under?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite some things that we can complain about at BA, which are widely publicised and not for discussion in this thread, BA has a good, adequate way of determining ZFW and the required fuel. They also have a robust fuel policy. Despite the fact that we might not reduce fuel load by 200Kgs, we are pretty efficient and above all safe as an airline with fuel policy, and individual Captains descisions. The original poster was way off the mark. Yes BA has league tables, but in practice they are for the number crunchers to justify their jobs, not a pressure on the line. As I said above, they weren't even mentioned in training.
Just humble SLF3, but if I were top of a league for carrying less fuel than my colleagues it would lead me to suspect that I was flying closer to the wind (excuse the phraseology) than they were - and I would then tend to carry more fuel as a result.
Perhaps a league table can help those at both the top and bottom to improve their performance?
Perhaps a league table can help those at both the top and bottom to improve their performance?