How much fuel do you carry?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another line of thought...
Does it matter (safety wise) how much fuel you depart with? What matters is what action you do (or do not) take as it runs low...
Our fuel policy is to try and take Flt Plan fuel. Most do, or close to it. If we run short, we shout to ATC, divert, bleat to Ops to swap EATs etc. I do not know of any cases where anyone has seriously got low on fuel.
Its between Mgmt and ATC to call a stop to it when there are too many PAN calls, diversions etc.
Just an alternative way of looking at it...
NoD
Does it matter (safety wise) how much fuel you depart with? What matters is what action you do (or do not) take as it runs low...
Our fuel policy is to try and take Flt Plan fuel. Most do, or close to it. If we run short, we shout to ATC, divert, bleat to Ops to swap EATs etc. I do not know of any cases where anyone has seriously got low on fuel.
Its between Mgmt and ATC to call a stop to it when there are too many PAN calls, diversions etc.
Just an alternative way of looking at it...
NoD
Guest
Posts: n/a
NigelOnDraft
If, after departing on minimum flt plan fuel, you have to shout to ATC, swap EAT etc, you will be putting someone else under pressure and perhaps reducing his safety margin.
To say it is for management and ATC to call a stop when there are too many Pan calls, diversions etc suggests that you are expecting them to take responsibility for the safe management of your flight.
If, after departing on minimum flt plan fuel, you have to shout to ATC, swap EAT etc, you will be putting someone else under pressure and perhaps reducing his safety margin.
To say it is for management and ATC to call a stop when there are too many Pan calls, diversions etc suggests that you are expecting them to take responsibility for the safe management of your flight.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yak Hunter's comment regarding cost of carrying fuel reminds me of a rather humorous story. Or at least I think so. I was told this by an eye witness.
It seems a very senior DC-10 Captain was being given a company line check. At the dispatch office the Captain ordered 20,000 pounds more than minimum. The Check Airman (junior seniority as they often are in the US) piped up and told the Captain that it would take an additional 2,000 lbs of fuel to carry his requested 20,000 additional extra pounds of fuel. To which the very senior gray hair re-ordered his fuel and requested 22,000 pounds1
It seems a very senior DC-10 Captain was being given a company line check. At the dispatch office the Captain ordered 20,000 pounds more than minimum. The Check Airman (junior seniority as they often are in the US) piped up and told the Captain that it would take an additional 2,000 lbs of fuel to carry his requested 20,000 additional extra pounds of fuel. To which the very senior gray hair re-ordered his fuel and requested 22,000 pounds1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Never with Min Fuel.
I feel I have a responsability both towards the paxs who trust me for a safe journey and towards the employer who pays my checks to protect his investment.
Giving in to pressure with respect to fuel does nothing for the overall performance of the company and places our paxs and airline at risk. If the company is to go under it will not be for the extra fuel we carry. It is difficult to draw a line between economic and safe/sensible but someone its got to draw it and it happens to be us.
A little story...
A couple of years ago someone convinced our management that we were uplifting too much fuel and requesting too much extra fuel (about 30 min) and intructed flight dispatchers to keep a daily record of captains requesting fuel above Min. After a month of running this show they stopped all the sudden.They found found out that during that month uplifted fuel had gone up by almost 10%.
Today is the day when they still worry about fuel but the unofficial word is "Donīt let fuel become your first problem".
Yak Hunt:
I agree with you...there many other ways to reduce costs.
P.S. Glad "commitment to stay" is not an option for us.
I feel I have a responsability both towards the paxs who trust me for a safe journey and towards the employer who pays my checks to protect his investment.
Giving in to pressure with respect to fuel does nothing for the overall performance of the company and places our paxs and airline at risk. If the company is to go under it will not be for the extra fuel we carry. It is difficult to draw a line between economic and safe/sensible but someone its got to draw it and it happens to be us.
A little story...
A couple of years ago someone convinced our management that we were uplifting too much fuel and requesting too much extra fuel (about 30 min) and intructed flight dispatchers to keep a daily record of captains requesting fuel above Min. After a month of running this show they stopped all the sudden.They found found out that during that month uplifted fuel had gone up by almost 10%.
Today is the day when they still worry about fuel but the unofficial word is "Donīt let fuel become your first problem".
Yak Hunt:
I agree with you...there many other ways to reduce costs.
P.S. Glad "commitment to stay" is not an option for us.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are these guys for real? If you take min fuel you have by definition no fuel to hold with. It is frankly insanity unless you have to and then you need to be very sharp about diverting.
I work for a regional turboprop operator who have never once questioned a single fuel decision I have made. I appreciate not being badgered to do something stupid - long may it continue.
I work for a regional turboprop operator who have never once questioned a single fuel decision I have made. I appreciate not being badgered to do something stupid - long may it continue.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At this time of year the weather is fine; the birds sing; a light breeze caresses right down the runway. I can see the runway at LGW from Detling, no trouble at all. But...what's that? Oh no, not again, those charter cowboys have blocked the runway yet again. What is it this time? A wayward cowling? Oh....silly me, of course not, nothing so temporary: they've dug a wheel in the verge again. Still, with no holding fuel and no diversion fuel, I'll just have to land on top of them!!!!
------------------
Common sense is the least common of all the senses.
------------------
Common sense is the least common of all the senses.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a couple of thoughts on the carriage of fuel.
It ain't what you depart with that counts, it's what you arrive with. No point in putting yourself in an awkward situation by arriving with too little fuel to allow for unforeseen problems or delays etc.
Besides when you get to the Lambourne hold and don't have enough fuel to hang around for 30 mins you will end up taking your pax, who have paid to go to LHR, to STN or LGW or, God forbid, LTN. Neither they, nor the company will be too pleased.
An average pax, during his/her travelling lifetime is probably worth around Ģ300K to your airline - if they come back. One diversion can be enough to change their brand loyalty. Suddenly 3% or Ģ10 to carry an extra tonne seems cheap !
[This message has been edited by PaulDeGearup (edited 17 May 2001).]
It ain't what you depart with that counts, it's what you arrive with. No point in putting yourself in an awkward situation by arriving with too little fuel to allow for unforeseen problems or delays etc.
Besides when you get to the Lambourne hold and don't have enough fuel to hang around for 30 mins you will end up taking your pax, who have paid to go to LHR, to STN or LGW or, God forbid, LTN. Neither they, nor the company will be too pleased.
An average pax, during his/her travelling lifetime is probably worth around Ģ300K to your airline - if they come back. One diversion can be enough to change their brand loyalty. Suddenly 3% or Ģ10 to carry an extra tonne seems cheap !
[This message has been edited by PaulDeGearup (edited 17 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sand Spider. The last time I went around at Gatwick (having reduced to just about min fuel in the Willow hold), it was because a well known ex-British-state-airline translated "clear immediate" into "just a minute old chap, must check the cheese board first". Yes, it was a beautiful day, but Midhurst-Mayfield is a long way, when you would really like a short visual circuit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PauldeGearup
In my company most people take flightplan fuel most of the time unless we deem it appropriate to take extra. I have only once come close to diverting in 15 years due lack of fuel and that was due LHR single runway ops with SRAs on to 09L. Holding delays initially 50 - 60 mins.
Carrying 10 or 15 mins extra in that situation would not help and I certainly would not commit in that situation either. Net result diversion with or wothout a little extra.
As it happened they got the problems resolved quite quickly and we arrived at LHR.
If you care to investigate the reasons for diversions due lack of fuel I think you will find the diversion would have occured with or without extra fuel due to a major problem at destination.
Certainly the fuel policy in my company works and has done for many years. Most arguments for routinely carrying extra 'just in case' do not stand serious scrutiny.
In my company most people take flightplan fuel most of the time unless we deem it appropriate to take extra. I have only once come close to diverting in 15 years due lack of fuel and that was due LHR single runway ops with SRAs on to 09L. Holding delays initially 50 - 60 mins.
Carrying 10 or 15 mins extra in that situation would not help and I certainly would not commit in that situation either. Net result diversion with or wothout a little extra.
As it happened they got the problems resolved quite quickly and we arrived at LHR.
If you care to investigate the reasons for diversions due lack of fuel I think you will find the diversion would have occured with or without extra fuel due to a major problem at destination.
Certainly the fuel policy in my company works and has done for many years. Most arguments for routinely carrying extra 'just in case' do not stand serious scrutiny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jet engines do not work very well on air!
Basically, there are only two fuel figures - full wings or full tanks!
Reminds me of the story years ago of the ramp agent coming on the flight deck and advising the captain that he had reduced the fuel figure since the load was a lot lower than expected.
Come departure time the captain was nowhere to be seen. Eventually he was tracked down back at home again. When asked why he had disappeared he said that as the ground agent seemed to know better then he did what the fuel load ought to be then he would be better equipped to be the captain of the aircraft!
By the way, this is not casting aspersions on ground agents for whom I have great respect!
Perhaps we need a placard on the back of the left hand seat which says "The buck stops here!"
------------------
Basically, there are only two fuel figures - full wings or full tanks!
Reminds me of the story years ago of the ramp agent coming on the flight deck and advising the captain that he had reduced the fuel figure since the load was a lot lower than expected.
Come departure time the captain was nowhere to be seen. Eventually he was tracked down back at home again. When asked why he had disappeared he said that as the ground agent seemed to know better then he did what the fuel load ought to be then he would be better equipped to be the captain of the aircraft!
By the way, this is not casting aspersions on ground agents for whom I have great respect!
Perhaps we need a placard on the back of the left hand seat which says "The buck stops here!"
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
For the sake of argument, letīs say you do everything right, are careful and thoughtful about your fuel decision, and decide that your flight will be totally safe today with flt plan minimum fuel.
Itīs a long flight, and thus planned at FL350 @ M .80.
On climb out departure clears you to FL 260, and please contact next sector for higher. Next sector clears you to FL280, sorry but higher is not available due to traffic.
What now?
Or say higher is available but please maintain M .76 because youīre behind a 737-400.
What now?
Just food for thought.
By the way, I am in the very fortunate position of not having to worry about fuel load or costs as I fly a one A/C VIP operation, and the boss insists on full fuel always. (based on A/C limitations)However, in the past I always carried a little over flt plan minimum for mom and the boys back home.
Itīs a long flight, and thus planned at FL350 @ M .80.
On climb out departure clears you to FL 260, and please contact next sector for higher. Next sector clears you to FL280, sorry but higher is not available due to traffic.
What now?
Or say higher is available but please maintain M .76 because youīre behind a 737-400.
What now?
Just food for thought.
By the way, I am in the very fortunate position of not having to worry about fuel load or costs as I fly a one A/C VIP operation, and the boss insists on full fuel always. (based on A/C limitations)However, in the past I always carried a little over flt plan minimum for mom and the boys back home.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Downin3green,
Isn't this what contingency fuel is for?
My experience is that although one might start with a non flight plave level things usually improve later on. On certain occasions one can re-route to get a more favourable level.
------------------
Isn't this what contingency fuel is for?
My experience is that although one might start with a non flight plave level things usually improve later on. On certain occasions one can re-route to get a more favourable level.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firefly,
Yes and that is my point. Depending on the company or flight planning service used, you may not always have contingency fuel.
I was just trying to say that lots of things can happen to cause fuel remaining at top of descent to be a lot less than one would like if they donīt add some extra to the "flight plan" amount.
Yes and that is my point. Depending on the company or flight planning service used, you may not always have contingency fuel.
I was just trying to say that lots of things can happen to cause fuel remaining at top of descent to be a lot less than one would like if they donīt add some extra to the "flight plan" amount.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry I couldn't answer to your replies to my comment earlier, but I also somtimes have to work.
At least I brought up some discussion to this matter. But still I have the impression, that my thoughts and understanding of this matter needs some clarification about what I mean.
MAR10, if you look at my wording, you will see that my feeling is that the decision on how much fuel to carry lies solely with the crew. Any pressure by the company to push anybody on how much fuel to carry, in my eyes, disqualifies the management, showing it is unable to lead an airline.
Next it looks like everybody has different understanding about what min fuel means. To me it is the minimum fuel to carry according to law to ensure a safe flight. It includes Taxi, Departure, Enroute, Approach, Contingency, Missed Approach, Climb out, Flight to Alternate, Approach to Alternate, and a safty reserve as specified by the authorities.
So, with this clarification, I hope I can convince some of you, that it is not unsafe to fly with my company.
Now, experience has shown, that with our flight plan calculation, you usually land with a lot of fuel above min diversion remaining. So the question I tried to arise is: Is it really necessary to carry any extra fuel?
Now to the concerns about getting the wrong FL or being vectored around a littlebit. If, at least for longer flights, you know the performance of your aircraft, you usually should find ways (reducing cost index, reclearance calculation, etc.) to adjust to the adverse situation, if !! you really find out that you are using up your contingency.
The last point to mention is the flight plan calculation your company is providing you with. At least our flight plans are individual calculations, considering high consumption for each individual aircraft. Our company provides us with information about what is considered in the these calculations. Still we try to cross-check these calculations provided as much as possible, as there still might be some mistakes in there. As I said above the decision lies solely with the crew.
And I can assure you that, if I feel any uncertainty about what to expect, I will also carry etra fuel. If I fly to a new airport for example or if I have to approach FRA during high season, you bet I will take at least 30 min or an hour extra.
On the other hand, as long as you are not sure on how to trust your company flight plan, I understand anybody always carrying extra fuel to stay safe.
At least I brought up some discussion to this matter. But still I have the impression, that my thoughts and understanding of this matter needs some clarification about what I mean.
MAR10, if you look at my wording, you will see that my feeling is that the decision on how much fuel to carry lies solely with the crew. Any pressure by the company to push anybody on how much fuel to carry, in my eyes, disqualifies the management, showing it is unable to lead an airline.
Next it looks like everybody has different understanding about what min fuel means. To me it is the minimum fuel to carry according to law to ensure a safe flight. It includes Taxi, Departure, Enroute, Approach, Contingency, Missed Approach, Climb out, Flight to Alternate, Approach to Alternate, and a safty reserve as specified by the authorities.
So, with this clarification, I hope I can convince some of you, that it is not unsafe to fly with my company.
Now, experience has shown, that with our flight plan calculation, you usually land with a lot of fuel above min diversion remaining. So the question I tried to arise is: Is it really necessary to carry any extra fuel?
Now to the concerns about getting the wrong FL or being vectored around a littlebit. If, at least for longer flights, you know the performance of your aircraft, you usually should find ways (reducing cost index, reclearance calculation, etc.) to adjust to the adverse situation, if !! you really find out that you are using up your contingency.
The last point to mention is the flight plan calculation your company is providing you with. At least our flight plans are individual calculations, considering high consumption for each individual aircraft. Our company provides us with information about what is considered in the these calculations. Still we try to cross-check these calculations provided as much as possible, as there still might be some mistakes in there. As I said above the decision lies solely with the crew.
And I can assure you that, if I feel any uncertainty about what to expect, I will also carry etra fuel. If I fly to a new airport for example or if I have to approach FRA during high season, you bet I will take at least 30 min or an hour extra.
On the other hand, as long as you are not sure on how to trust your company flight plan, I understand anybody always carrying extra fuel to stay safe.
