How much fuel do you carry?
Guest
Posts: n/a
How much fuel do you carry?
Article in FT obviously taken from CHIRP
Airlines' fuel policy may add to stress on pilots
By Vanessa Houlder
Published: May 13 2001 21:26GMT | Last Updated: May 13 2001 21:53GMT
The company culture of some British airlines could be prompting pilots to reduce the fuel taken on commercial flights, according to a report by the Civil Aviation Authority, the air safety regulator.
The review said it was conceivable that the application of excessively tight fuel policies could add to the perceived mental pressure on pilots, leading to poor decision-making and increased risk of accidents.
The survey of 14 operators found no evidence that company fuel planning processes contravened official requirements. It said it was harder to measure the impact of company culture on questions such as whether pilots should accept extra payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of contingency fuel.
It said that although none of the operators had specified unreasonable guidelines about the amount of fuel with which commanders might depart, this was difficult to reconcile with some reports that had been received from flight crews.
It urged companies to address "the manner in which flight crews interpret their company culture on fuel planning". The review said some operators were reported to use "league tables" that ranked commanders who took more fuel on flights than stipulated by computer flight plans.
My main concern with this sort or reporting is the effect it could have on CHIRP.
Airlines' fuel policy may add to stress on pilots
By Vanessa Houlder
Published: May 13 2001 21:26GMT | Last Updated: May 13 2001 21:53GMT
The company culture of some British airlines could be prompting pilots to reduce the fuel taken on commercial flights, according to a report by the Civil Aviation Authority, the air safety regulator.
The review said it was conceivable that the application of excessively tight fuel policies could add to the perceived mental pressure on pilots, leading to poor decision-making and increased risk of accidents.
The survey of 14 operators found no evidence that company fuel planning processes contravened official requirements. It said it was harder to measure the impact of company culture on questions such as whether pilots should accept extra payload in place of slightly more generous calculations of contingency fuel.
It said that although none of the operators had specified unreasonable guidelines about the amount of fuel with which commanders might depart, this was difficult to reconcile with some reports that had been received from flight crews.
It urged companies to address "the manner in which flight crews interpret their company culture on fuel planning". The review said some operators were reported to use "league tables" that ranked commanders who took more fuel on flights than stipulated by computer flight plans.
My main concern with this sort or reporting is the effect it could have on CHIRP.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Enough to keep out of trouble!
Seriously, it costs approx ten quid to carry an extra One Tonne of fuel for an hour, so 20min holding approx 600kgs costs around six quid an hour to carry! I think any flight into a busy airport that does not carry that quite frankly needs their head examined.
Yes I can see that Six quid X hundreds of thousands of flights is a lot.
When I see ten very expensive meals go in the bin........
Crews passengering unecessarily.........
Unnecessary Hotac..........
Inefficient rostering...........
I am all for an efficient airline, however I think this fuel thing is out of perspective. There are much better ways of saving money.
However at the end of the year the bean counter can say to the board
'If we can get the pilots to carry less fuel you would have £6 x the number of flights in your coffers'
So they can blame pilots, and in my experience - guess who hate Pilots the most!!
I am not condoning taking silly amounts of fuel, but come on you are in Millions of pounds worth of gear and a lot of Human life, not to mention your peace of mind.
Let's keep this in perspective, if an airfield regularly has 20 min holding without notice and you do not carry that as a matter of course, that is not the sort of airmanship older and wiser pilots than me had the good sense to tell me!
Let's attack the real waste.
[This message has been edited by Yak Hunt (edited 14 May 2001).]
Seriously, it costs approx ten quid to carry an extra One Tonne of fuel for an hour, so 20min holding approx 600kgs costs around six quid an hour to carry! I think any flight into a busy airport that does not carry that quite frankly needs their head examined.
Yes I can see that Six quid X hundreds of thousands of flights is a lot.
When I see ten very expensive meals go in the bin........
Crews passengering unecessarily.........
Unnecessary Hotac..........
Inefficient rostering...........
I am all for an efficient airline, however I think this fuel thing is out of perspective. There are much better ways of saving money.
However at the end of the year the bean counter can say to the board
'If we can get the pilots to carry less fuel you would have £6 x the number of flights in your coffers'
So they can blame pilots, and in my experience - guess who hate Pilots the most!!
I am not condoning taking silly amounts of fuel, but come on you are in Millions of pounds worth of gear and a lot of Human life, not to mention your peace of mind.
Let's keep this in perspective, if an airfield regularly has 20 min holding without notice and you do not carry that as a matter of course, that is not the sort of airmanship older and wiser pilots than me had the good sense to tell me!
Let's attack the real waste.
[This message has been edited by Yak Hunt (edited 14 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Our company standard is "how much would you like above min block guys?" Yeh sure if block is 10,200kgs and we order 19,500kgs, someone might ask some questions, but in day to day operations the Captain/Crew has the final say and that is that.
As far as running a "who is taking the most fuel" list is concerned, that seems to be the quickest way to an accident I have ever heard of.
As far as running a "who is taking the most fuel" list is concerned, that seems to be the quickest way to an accident I have ever heard of.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As much as we deem necessary.
So far it´s mostly been whoever in the crew "offers" the highest number.
We´re paid to make "wise" decisions.
In your whole flying career you´ll never cover the cost of a diversion, by ordering the legal minimum.
SOPs last sentence sums it all up (think Garuda or MAS or whoeveritwas...)
So far it´s mostly been whoever in the crew "offers" the highest number.
We´re paid to make "wise" decisions.
In your whole flying career you´ll never cover the cost of a diversion, by ordering the legal minimum.
SOPs last sentence sums it all up (think Garuda or MAS or whoeveritwas...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fuel eqauls time, and considering time being a valuable resource in an abnormal situation I would give praise to a Crew that gives itself and its pax a safer ride. Giving in to company pressure is not good airmanship.
------------------
If it feels wrong - it usually is !
------------------
If it feels wrong - it usually is !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Todays 6.30am BBc radio two news.. " The Uk Caa has said it will ground any UK airline that keeps legue tables on its pilots fuel loads or pressurises Captains about fuel above Computer"
This does NOT solve the problem for foreign airline pilots who arrive in big airliners with nearly dry tanks over London and are generally not fully alert after many hours of flight and are not fully familiar with short distance diversions.
It is a tentative start bought on by the power of the press and is politicaly correct and supported just prior to an election.
Not the time the government wants to have a flame out over London or with this lot on record on pprune.
This min fuel madness is so dangerouse that I do not care who finally forces thoes in authority to act or where they get their information from as long as it forces the UK Caa to take action and do their bl..dy job of aiding not destroying safety.
This fuel situation has become common knowledge thanks to pprune which is becomeing the modern day chirps and importantly appears the only way to get the Caa to do something before the tomb stones.
This does NOT solve the problem for foreign airline pilots who arrive in big airliners with nearly dry tanks over London and are generally not fully alert after many hours of flight and are not fully familiar with short distance diversions.
It is a tentative start bought on by the power of the press and is politicaly correct and supported just prior to an election.
Not the time the government wants to have a flame out over London or with this lot on record on pprune.
This min fuel madness is so dangerouse that I do not care who finally forces thoes in authority to act or where they get their information from as long as it forces the UK Caa to take action and do their bl..dy job of aiding not destroying safety.
This fuel situation has become common knowledge thanks to pprune which is becomeing the modern day chirps and importantly appears the only way to get the Caa to do something before the tomb stones.
Guest
Posts: n/a
We use fuel tables and I do think it encourages some unhealthy competition. What is more worrying is that some of the flight plans we employ are very optimistic.
For example from a UK regional airport to Frankfurt our flight plan uses Hahn as a diversion, assumes from top of descent to landing using 400kg and gets you on the ground with 2,100kg.
Not much for an A319 but enough into a small quiet airfield on a nice day when you are familiar etc etc. Frankfurt however is not small or quiet and not suprisingly I ended up at Hahn this winter. Nice people and we turned round pretty quick but it all rather defeats the point of going with minimums.
I was at least aware of the risks of going with minimums. I am not sure we all are and it would be a pity if someone learns the hard way.
Regards and safe flying
For example from a UK regional airport to Frankfurt our flight plan uses Hahn as a diversion, assumes from top of descent to landing using 400kg and gets you on the ground with 2,100kg.
Not much for an A319 but enough into a small quiet airfield on a nice day when you are familiar etc etc. Frankfurt however is not small or quiet and not suprisingly I ended up at Hahn this winter. Nice people and we turned round pretty quick but it all rather defeats the point of going with minimums.
I was at least aware of the risks of going with minimums. I am not sure we all are and it would be a pity if someone learns the hard way.
Regards and safe flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
I work for an AIRLINE, yes an airline and that involves carrying fuel. I have NEVER EVER taken minimum fuel and I NEVER EVER will. I always carry an extra 1000kg (737)and more if need be. Nobody has ever questioned this and if they ever do my answer is - you've put me in charge I AM IN CHARGE. Extra fuel carried is not for the benefit of the company, it's for the well being of the flight crew!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
From todays Daily Telegraph:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000...15/ncaa15.html
This should put a stop to any pressure, perceived or otherwise, to carry any less than the fuel you personally want.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000...15/ncaa15.html
This should put a stop to any pressure, perceived or otherwise, to carry any less than the fuel you personally want.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe that min fuel uplift questions could arise when you operating with performance limitations (short/hot/high runway or long distance). In such case additional 1 tone of fuel means you need to disemark 10 pax or 1 tone of cargo, isn't it?
Any Maersk drivers here? Are you departing exactly with min required fuel to/from FAE on 735, keeping in mind you constantly disemabarking cargo or even(?) baggage to stay within avail LW/TOW to/from FAE, where diversion is very likely (weather is always bad), and alternates are far away?
Any Maersk drivers here? Are you departing exactly with min required fuel to/from FAE on 735, keeping in mind you constantly disemabarking cargo or even(?) baggage to stay within avail LW/TOW to/from FAE, where diversion is very likely (weather is always bad), and alternates are far away?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I work for a much-maligned UK airline, BUT there is never a problem with fuel. We are made aware that it costs money to carry extra, but there the story ends. Captains are expected to be responsible enough to carry what they consider sensible. That said, if I do carry more extra than normal, I annotate the flight plan with an explanation, so should there ever be a query, I have the good reason to hand (forecast Cb, turbulence etc, possible re-routeing, changing of levels). Long may the operations department have the say on this matter, not the accountants.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has anybody of you ever tried to fly regularly with "min fuel"?
I am working for a company which is encouraging us crews to use min t/o fuel as offen as possible if we feel satisfied with the overall conditions.
And guess what!!! It works.
In nearly 5 years of flying I only was once close to the point, where we had to consider opting for "commitment to stay", which is still a safe procedure.
The point is, and that is the way we handle it, you as the crew have to take into account the situation you will most possibly expect, and if you take extra, you just make a short comment about why. There is no sense in flying min fuel to FRA when approaching during the high season of the day. But most places (at least where we are operating to) usually have the potential of using min fuel procedure.
And another thing to mention, which seems pretty interesting, is the fact, that under certain conditions we are even flying without alternate. And this also works out quite well, but only with an experienced crew able to anticipate what to expect.
I thing, that the enroute alternate conditions in Western Europe gives us enough room to maneuver to give more considerations to the ecological as well as economical points. And as long as new procedures are implemented, which proof to be safe, I will do my very best to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and to safe fuel.
I am working for a company which is encouraging us crews to use min t/o fuel as offen as possible if we feel satisfied with the overall conditions.
And guess what!!! It works.
In nearly 5 years of flying I only was once close to the point, where we had to consider opting for "commitment to stay", which is still a safe procedure.
The point is, and that is the way we handle it, you as the crew have to take into account the situation you will most possibly expect, and if you take extra, you just make a short comment about why. There is no sense in flying min fuel to FRA when approaching during the high season of the day. But most places (at least where we are operating to) usually have the potential of using min fuel procedure.
And another thing to mention, which seems pretty interesting, is the fact, that under certain conditions we are even flying without alternate. And this also works out quite well, but only with an experienced crew able to anticipate what to expect.
I thing, that the enroute alternate conditions in Western Europe gives us enough room to maneuver to give more considerations to the ecological as well as economical points. And as long as new procedures are implemented, which proof to be safe, I will do my very best to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses and to safe fuel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rammstein, the original topic as I understand is concerning company pressure on flightcrews regarding amount of fuel carried.
Amount of fuel could be minimum required if equipment as well as conditions permit, but who makes the decision and has final responsibility?
------------------
If it feels wrong - it usually is !
Amount of fuel could be minimum required if equipment as well as conditions permit, but who makes the decision and has final responsibility?
------------------
If it feels wrong - it usually is !