BA's Fuel Policy & League Tables, safe or not?
But it is not a question of one pilot taking less fuel than another. The basic fact is that no pilot that I know off would ever take less than PLOG (flight plan) fuel.
What I am talking about is learning techniques in how to do better than PLOG fuel. In other words, I try arrive at destination with MORE fuel than the other guys who cannot be bothered to see if they can do better.
When I am talking about leaugue tables, I am talking about the actual burn (ramp fuel minus on-block fuel) and absolutely not taking less than forecast.
I can well remember saving 3000 lbs of PLOG fuel on an LAX - LGW flight just to be told that I had to do a re-route around the West country because Concorde was headed for New York!
This seemed quite unreasonable to me and I asked ATC if they were incapable of vectoring Concorde and I to keep us apart.
With great reluctance they agreed to this. Next day, Fred Laker sent for me and told me that London ATC had submitted a violation on me and asked me what I had to say.
I said that if London ATC were unable to sort out their priorities then that was hardly my problem and that, on the plus side, I had saved him 3000 lbs of fuel.
I heard no more.
What I am talking about is learning techniques in how to do better than PLOG fuel. In other words, I try arrive at destination with MORE fuel than the other guys who cannot be bothered to see if they can do better.
When I am talking about leaugue tables, I am talking about the actual burn (ramp fuel minus on-block fuel) and absolutely not taking less than forecast.
I can well remember saving 3000 lbs of PLOG fuel on an LAX - LGW flight just to be told that I had to do a re-route around the West country because Concorde was headed for New York!
This seemed quite unreasonable to me and I asked ATC if they were incapable of vectoring Concorde and I to keep us apart.
With great reluctance they agreed to this. Next day, Fred Laker sent for me and told me that London ATC had submitted a violation on me and asked me what I had to say.
I said that if London ATC were unable to sort out their priorities then that was hardly my problem and that, on the plus side, I had saved him 3000 lbs of fuel.
I heard no more.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole title and premise of this thread ("safe or not?") carries a scent of ignorance, because fuel safety is not a binary issue. It's a matter of statistical margins, isn't it?
Even if you carried huge reserves, there is still a very very remote probability, an extremely adverse circumstance, that you run dry.
And money spent tankering excess fuel is money unavailable for other, more meaningful, safety measures.
Even if you carried huge reserves, there is still a very very remote probability, an extremely adverse circumstance, that you run dry.
And money spent tankering excess fuel is money unavailable for other, more meaningful, safety measures.
Back to the top of thread.........BA fuel policy safe or not? Yes, I expect that it is, but when I left BA SWORD planning always had a minimum of 15 minutes contingency built in, often a lot more. I know nothing about CIRRUS but the margins must be thinner. That's statistically ok, but what pressure is it producing, particularly for long range operations? What about this, that I heard today, at about 2000Z northwest bound in Delhi FIR?: BA16 complains for many minutes about vectors to lose 9 minutes to fit into traffic overflying Kabul FIR, expects priority as 'already airborne for 5 hours', as opposed to shorthaul traffic, i.e their sectors only around 6 hours or so.Quote 'we often only carry 9 minutes contingency fuel'. A long and embarrassing exchange on a busy frequency with a pressurised controller. This was unacceptable, you either factor in the variables and accept and manage the variables along the route, or tech stop/divert. I flew SIN-LHR many times on low reserves, but whatever the new criteria are now, don't take it out on the controllers. BA never once queried my fuel uplifts, but on SIN-LHR you simply cannot get enough fuel on unless you insist that a (small) amount of cargo is offloaded.That was never queried either, maybe some people should try that?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear Hear!!
Fuel Policy seems to work okay to me. Fact of life that fuel is an expensive commodity. It's our judgement to uplift the fuel required for the flight.
And since it is judgement one can try and make the decision more informed by producing stats. Up to you to be introspective or do nothing with it.
Fuel Policy seems to work okay to me. Fact of life that fuel is an expensive commodity. It's our judgement to uplift the fuel required for the flight.
And since it is judgement one can try and make the decision more informed by producing stats. Up to you to be introspective or do nothing with it.
